Sitting of 3 June 1845

Preamble
MINUTES. BILLS. Private.—Reported.—North Woolwich Railway.
3a. and passed:—Glasgow Markets.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Viscount Duncan, from Bath, and by Viscount Newry and Morne, from Carlingford, for Better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Mr. C. Bruce, and Mr. Morgan, from several places, against the Grant to Maynooth College.—By Mr. Morison, from Inverness, for Reduction of Tolls and Dues levied by Lighthouses.—By Mr. Ferrand, from several places, in favour of the Ten Hours System.—By Mr. Bailey, and Mr. Wilshere, from several places, against Physic and Surgery Bill.—By Viscount Duncan, from several places, for Alteration of Law relating to the Sale of Beer.

SERVICES OF SIR HENRY POTTINGER.
Mr. Hume, in rising to submit the Motion of which he had given notice to the House, said, he could assure the House that he did so with very considerable diffidence as to the propriety of the course he had adopted. He confessed he had expected that Her Majesty's Ministers would have saved him the trouble of bringing the subject before the House; but seeing that they had not done so, and entertaining strong opinons on the question, he thought it his duty to interfere. He was aware that the very Motion implied a degree of censure on Her Majesty's Ministers, it he were correct in the opinion he had formed, which was, that a public officer, entrusted with the most important duties, who had performed them to the perfect satisfaction of every individual acquainted with the country which formed the scene of his services, remained to this time unrewarded for those important services; and the object of the present Motion was to call upon the House to mark their sense of them by such a reward as might be deemed becoming their magnitude. He knew how hard it was for any individual in that House to bring forward any question to which Her Majesty's Ministers declared themselves opposed; and it was on that ground he felt he had taken upon himself a responsibility from which he could only be freed by finding that the House concurred with him generally in the course he had adopted, and sanctioned the Resolution he was about to propose. If he were asked whether he knew anything of Sir H. Pottinger or his friends,

1375
his answer was decidedly that he did not. He had never had any communication with Sir H. Pottinger; he had only seen him in a public place, and consequently, whatever might be the result of this Motion, that gallant officer could not be held responsible for the opinions which he might express. The House would bear in mind that these opinions of his were not of this Session or the last; he had expressed them in that House on the 14th February, 1843, when Her Majesty's Ministers brought forward a Motion of Thanks to the naval and military officers who conducted the war in China, and spoke in a high strain of panegyric on the conduct of Sir H. Pottinger as the director of those operations. He ventured on that occasion to inquire of the right hon. Baronet, whether it was the intention of Government to take any notice of the services of Sir H. Pottinger, so as to afford the House the gratification of testifying their sense of his merits. The right hon. Baronet then stated his deep regret that he could not submit a Motion for a Vote of Thanks to the House, because there was no precedent for it in the case of any one employed in the diplomatic service of the Crown. If there was no precedent at that time for such a Motion, the right hon. Baronet had subsequently bound himself to such a precedent by supporting the Motion which he had submitted to the House with respect to the conduct of Lord Ashburton in concluding a Treaty, which appeared to him of the utmost importance to the welfare both of England and the United States. The Motion which he was now about to make was supported by fifty precedents. It would be impossible for him to recount to the House all the signal services of Sir H. Pottinger during a career of thirty-seven years in the East India Company's service. The Government, in withholding from that gallant officer such a reward as he was well entitled to, not alone on that ground, but as the director of the operations of our fleet and armies in the Chinese war, which he had conducted to so successful an issue, was acting against the known wishes of ninety-nine out of every hundred commercial men in the country. He could not help suspecting that some overpowering reason must exist to prevent the right hon. Baronet from doing an act of justice to an individual whose claims were in every way so preeminent. If Sir Henry Pottinger had not been employed in China, he would have
1376
been appointed to one of the governments in India at ten or twelve thousand a year; and, if the House would attend, he would tell them how he had actually been rewarded. On the ratification of the Chinese Treaty, he received the Civil Grand Cross of the Bath, and was nominated a Member of the Privy Council. These were honours, but what were the substantial rewards? He (Sir H. Pottinger) had enjoyed an appointment as Chief Commissioner in China for two years, at a salary of 5,000 l. a year, and his whole permanent income was 490 l. a year. His successor, Mr. Davis, who had nothing to do with the most important negotiations, enjoyed a salary of 6,000 l. a year; while the man who had achieved all the good, who had opened the vast Empire of China to our commerce, remained on a paltry pittance of 490 l. a year. This was surely not enough for a man who had so served his country, and through whose means, putting higher considerations out of the question, twenty-one millions of dollars had been paid by way of ransom into our Treasury. If precedents for granting pensions for such services were asked for, he could refer to many such, granted in consideration of diplomatic services, compared with which those of Sir Henry Pottinger were certainly neither less successful nor less brilliant. Such were the pensions enjoyed by the late Sir Gore Ouseley and the present Sir Henry Willock, to whom he meant nothing disrespectful in saying that Sir Henry Pottinger's services at least merited an equal testimonial of gratitude from the country. These examples showed that the House had upon former occasions acknowledged in this way the value of diplomatic services; and he hoped, therefore, that he had removed the objection which might be raised, that there was no precedent for such pensions. They were recognised by Parliament, and by legislation they had been respected. For extraordinary circumstances it was always competent for Her Majesty's Ministers to propose pensions for official and diplomatic services. Sir H. Pottinger had performed most important services; and he put it to the House whether those services had not been admitted by every individual in the country, not excepting Her Majesty's Ministers themselves. He would put it to the House whether Sir H. Pottinger had not concluded his negotiations in a most surprising and satisfactory manner with

1377
the most cunning and artful people on the surface of the globe. Had not those services been performed in the most meritorious manner by Sir H. Pottinger's zeal and steady and unflinching conduct, after every preceding plenipotentiary had failed in carrying out the wishes of the Government? And was it nothing that Sir Henry Pottinger was the first man to conclude a commercial Treaty with the people of China, attended with so many advantages to this country—a Treaty which he (Mr. Hume) contended did the greatest honour to Great Britain; extending as it did the advantages which we received ourselves to every country on the face of the civilized globe? He spoke not his own sentiments only, for he believed that there was not a man in England who appreciated the blessings of peace but eulogized the character and conduct of Sir H. Pottinger. But he would particularly refer the House to the opinions expressed by Her Majesty's Ministers themselves. And first, he would quote the expressions used by the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, on the 14th February, 1843, who on the occasion of a Vote of Thanks for the Army in China being proposed, in which Sir H. Pottinger's name was not included, remarked—
"With respect to Sir Henry Pottinger, I think that the opportunity which I took on a former occasion of publicly acknowledging the sense entertained by the Government of the services of that distinguished man, must exempt the Government from the suspicion of wishing to throw any slight upon him.…… And now, when others concerned in the same expedition are to receive a mark of public gratitude, I should be sorry to allow the opportunity to pass without repeating the sentiments I then expressed. I wish it had been consistent with usage to have included the name of Sir Henry Pottinger in the Vote."*
Again regretting that he could not vote him thanks, Sir Robert Peel continued—
"I can well enter into the feelings of this distinguished man—distinguished not only for his civil qualifications, but for his military service—when he sees this public acknowledgment of the brilliant achievements of his brothers in arms, and feels that he cannot partake in the thanks of Parliament.…… We have, however, entreated him to remain until we can benefit by his opinions and advice upon many important matters connected with the adjustment of our future relations with China; and I assure the hon. Gentleman, that if Sir Henry
*Hansard's Debates (Third Series), Vol. lxvi. p. 572.
1378
Pottinger will recall his decision, and remain permanently in China, he will possess the entire confidence of Her Majesty's Government; and we should think that we had succeeded in making the arrangement of all others the most beneficial to the country."*
The gallant officer's merits were various. He was distinguished for his civil services in India, and on account of them alone he deserved the gratitude of the country. He would beg leave to remind the House in reference to Sir Henry Pottinger's claim to honours as a civil servant, of the opinion of Napoleon on such a subject, to be found in Alison's "History of Europe." The hon. Member read the following extract:—
"In the Council held to frame the 'Code Napoleon,' it was proposed by Count Mathieu Dumas that the order of the Legion of Honour should be confined to military men. 'Such ideas (said Napoleon) might be well adapted to the feudal ages, when the chevaliers combated each other man to man; but it is science and skill which now determines the fate of nations. What is it now which constitutes a great general? It is not the mere strength of a man six feet high, but the coup d'æil, the habit of foresight, the power of calculation, in a word—civil qualities, founded on a knowledge of human nature, and suited to the government of armies; and the general who can now achieve great things is he who is possessed of shining civil qualities. The tendency of military men is to carry everything by force; the enlightened civilian, on the other hand, elevates his views to the perception of the general good. I have no hesitation therefore, in stating that, if a preference was to be awarded to one or the other, it belongs to the civilian. But if you confine honours to military men, you sink civilians into nothing.' Moved by these profound observations (says Alison), the Council agreed that the proposed honours should be extended indiscriminately to civil and military distinctions."
The right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had not been alone in his testimony to the distinguished services of Sir Henry Pottinger. When Lord Aberdeen laid upon the Table of the Lords the supplementary Treaty with China, his Lordship said—
"And now he begged leave to advert to the very distinguished man whose labours had given these benefits and advantages to his country. He alluded to Sir H. Pottinger. It was impossible for their Lordships to imagine the difficulties and obstructions which Sir H. Pottinger had to encounter during this
*Hansard's Debates (Third Series), Vol. lxvi. p. 573, 574.

1379
most arduous negotiation. Acting in a country so entirely new, and so entirely different from any in which his experience had previously been engaged, he had contrived (great and complicated as the difficulties were by which he was surrounded), by the energy of his character and by the activity of his mind, to surmount them all. And, what was most remarkable, in a country where suspicion and distrust were proverbial, he contrived to establish complete confidence amongst those with whom he had to negotiate, almost to a miracle. Great as were the benefits that had been secured to this country, he did not hesitate to say that they were mainly attributable to the personal energy and ability of Sir H. Pottinger. He was now about to leave the situation in which he had effected so much good; and he (the Earl of Aberdeen) was quite sure that his retirement must be the subject of deep regret to that House and to the Government, who would find it exceedingly difficult adequately to supply his place. They would, however, adopt such measures as would, he hoped, render the loss of this admirable public servant as little severe as possible."
But another Cabinet Minister (Lord Stanley), at a public dinner at Liverpool, had borne the following testimony to the merits of Sir Henry Pottinger:—
"I know not, Gentlemen, how far it is generally known, that though undoubtedly, at that time to the right hon. Gentleman was not entrusted the superintendence of any military and naval movements, yet to him a large discretion was given by the Government, which fully confided in his talent and ability, of saying at what period those naval and military arguments had attained to such a height as to lead to the introduction of more polished diplomatic intercourse, to say at what time the arms of Britain should be stayed, and how soon the process of negotiation might commence. And when that period arrived, honourable alike to the arms of Britain and to the humanity and forbearance with which they were wielded, Her Majesty's Government had but the gratifying task, step by step, of applauding and approving the discretion, the temper, the judgment, and the forbearance with which those delicate negotiations were subsequently conducted by the right hon. Gentleman. In that department the right hon. Gentleman was more peculiarly responsible to another Member of Her Majesty's Government; but I had the satisfaction in another point of view of being brought universally into connexion with the right hon. Gentleman. I saw his untiring labours and his zealous assiduity in forming or founding a new Colonial society—in supervising the foundation of a Colony where all was new and strange—where obstacles were to be encountered from mutual prejudices, from ignorance of each other's habits, from omissions upon the one side, and upon the other from unreasonable demands and exorbitant expectations; and I saw the right hon.
1380
Gentleman with satisfaction, in his civil as well as in his diplomatic correspondence, carry on 'the even tenor of his way' with the one fixed intention, and that boldly conceived and boldly executed, of obtaining the greatest advantages consistently with the honour and the good faith of his country. Gentlemen, there is one point to which the right hon. Gentleman, in his address to you to-night, has peculiarly adverted, although he has modestly abstained from stating the full share which he has had in it. I allude to that decision to which he came, and it is due to him I should say he came to it and acted upon it upon his own responsibility, and without instructions—not only not to demand exclusive privileges (for that he was prohibited from doing), but for inserting as a stipulation in the Treaty, that all other nations should alike partake of the commercial advantages which had been gained by this country by the power of British arms, and by the prudence of British negotiation. … And, Gentlemen, I say it for myself—and I know I may say it also, for I have heard the sentiment repeated over and over again, for my right hon. Friend the Earl of Aberdeen—that it was to him and to me, in our several departments, a subject of the deepest regret when Sir Henry Pottinger's earnest entreaties induced us, or rather, I should say, compelled us to accede to a very strongly expressed desire of his, after so many years' service in distant countries, to return to his native land, there to enjoy, in the midst of his countrymen, the well earned honours which I am proud to see have been bestowed upon him; and, I can use no more emphatic language—
'To read his history in a nation's eyes.'"
He was at a loss to comprehend why any change should have come across the minds of Her Majesty's Ministers, who had pronounced those glowing eulogiums; and in the full confidence that he had made out his case, he would now conclude by moving—
"That this House will, upon Tuesday, the 24th day of this instant, June, resolve itself into a Committee, to consider the following Resolution:—That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to grant such a pension as She shall think proper, to the right honourable Sir Henry Pottinger, Baronet, K.C.B., as a reward for his eminent public services, and especially for having, as Her Majesty's Plenipotentiary in China, brought the war in that country to a conclusion by a peace alike honourable and advantageous; and to assure Her Majesty that this House will make good the same."
Viscount Sandonseconded the Resolution. After passing a glowing eulogium upon the civil and military services of Sir H. Pottinger, the noble Lord, admitting the difficulty of dealing with Motions of this description, declared himself prepared in

1381
consideration of those great services, not merely to the British nation, but to the cause of Christianity, to take this case out of the ordinary rule of civil routine. His opinion of the gallant Officer was fully confirmed, not only by distinguished and competent authorities upon the matter, but by the commercial prosperity which followed upon his eminent and successful services. In conclusion, the noble Lord begged to say, that this Motion was in no degree intended as a reproach to Her Majesty's Government.
Sir J. C. Hobhouse: I trust that the great anxiety which I feel for the success of this Motion, and the official connexion formerly subsisting between Sir Henry Pottinger and myself, when President of the Board of Control, may be a valid excuse for my speaking after the Mover and Seconder, without waiting to hear what may be said by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, in reply to the proposal made by the hon. Member for Montrose. And I must beg to premise, that I do not understand why my hon. Friend has anticipated, as a matter of certainty, that it is the intention of Government to oppose him on this occasion; for my part, I see no reason to come to such a conclusion; and I, for one, do not intend in the least to reproach the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Treasury, on account of his having allowed this proposition to be made by an independent Member of Parliament, instead of originating it himself. On ordinary occasions, indeed, the Ministers of the Crown are expected to make proposals of this nature; and if they do not make them, it is presumed they have some objection which would induce them to give a negative to them, if brought forward by others. But I can easily conceive a case in which the Minister may fairly wait to see what is the feeling of the House of Commons, before he considers himself justified in making a demand upon the national purse. Such I take the present case to be; and what I hope and believe is, that the Minister is only waiting for a decided expression of our opinion, in order to recommend to Her Majesty a compliance with the view taken by the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), in regard to the suitable mode of rewarding the services of Sir Henry Pottinger. I do not pretend to be acquainted with precedents sufficiently to enable me to state the exact position in which the House of Commons now stands, in regard to the granting of such pensions. I would rather treat this as an extraordinary case,
1382
to be dealt with in an unusual manner; but, believe me, the House need not fear that, by adopting this proposal, we shall establish an inconvenient precedent. Ages may roll over the heads of our successors, before any similar service can possibly be performed; indeed, there is no human probability of a like duty devolving upon any one—there is no other China to be opened to the civilized world—there is no other third of the habitable earth, hitherto shut upon us, which now remains to receive the fruits of our industry and enterprise. What Sir Henry Pottinger has done cannot be done again; and if it were to be done again, it would be hard indeed to find a man so able and so willing, so peculiarly qualified to do it. My hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) has alluded to the peculiar services of Sir Henry Pottinger, previously to his being selected for the China mission; and I shall venture to give a somewhat more detailed sketch of them. Sir Henry Pottinger entered as a volunteer in the Indian navy, when only fourteen years of age, in 1804; but soon quitted the navy and entered into the military branch of the profession, in which he speedily distinguished himself, so much, that he was chosen to accompany the important mission, sent by Lord Minto into Scinde, in 1809. His zeal and activity, whilst so employed, recommended him to the late Sir John Malcolm, who ordered him, in company with Captain Christie, to explore the countries between India and Persia; and of this useful mission, undertaken in the years 1810 and 1811, he published an account, which made him known to the literary world, and gave him a claim to the discharge of still more important duties. In the Mahratta war of 1816 and 1817, he was appointed political assistant to Mr. Elphinstone, and served under that most distinguished functionary during the whole of that eventful period; and such was the opinion entertained of him by Mr. Elphinstone, that on the close of the war, he was appointed to superintend a portion of the conquered countries, a duty which he performed for seven years. He was next appointed Resident in Cutch; and the prince being a minor, administered all the departments of that province, having the power of life and death, and being absolute master of the country. In 1831, he was sent by Lord William Bentinck to Scinde, and negotiated with the Ameers the Treaties that opened the navigation of the Indus. He returned to Cutch, and was again

1383
sent to Scinde in 1838, to frame with the Ameers the new Treaties rendered necessary by the preparations for the Affghan war. So eminent were his services during this critical period—so materially did he contribute to the complete and easy success of all the operations attendant upon the first passages of the Indus by the British army, that, when high honours were distributed to the principal civil and military functionaries at the triumphant close of the campaign, it was my pleasing duty to recommend Sir Henry Pottinger for a Baronetcy; and Her Majesty graciously conferred that distinction upon him. In 1840, he returned home; and, never shall I forget the effects produced, when, at a splendid entertainment given to Lord Keane and some of his companions, Sir Henry Pottinger acknowledged the attention paid to him, and apologized for his inaptitude in public speaking, from the fact of his having been for six-and-thirty years constantly employed in the service of his country, without having once left India. The quiet but manly modesty—the unaffected, the prepossessing simplicity of his manner and address, bespoke the superior qualities which we have since learnt fully to estimate; and made an impression not obliterated, in my mind at least, even by his subsequent exploits. In the early part of next year, 1841, my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, requested me to offer to Sir Henry Pottinger the important duty, the faithful and successful discharge of which, it is now proposed to reward. And here I must be permitted to mention what has, naturally, been hitherto known only to my late Colleagues and myself, that when this offer was made, Sir Henry Pottinger, though being in a most delicate state of health, did not hesitate at once to accept it, provided his medical advisers permitted him to do so; and when he had obtained their reluctant sanction, requested me to inform my noble Friend that he would undertake the office, stipulating only that the sole responsibility should rest with him—that he should have no Colleague—and that his instructions should be as precise as the nature of the circumstances would permit. And I must add a fact which will not fail, I am sure, to be duly appreciated by the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that Sir Henry Pottinger, in accepting (his delicate and difficult service, after so long a career of distinguished duty, made no sort of bargain for himself—he did not hint a word at any future reward, in case of success.
1384
He spoke only, and that but shortly, of his resolution to do his best, and his hopes of not failing. But although he forgot his own claims, that is no reason why they should not be remembered by us. He had, during his long and varied service, many an opportunity of making an Indian fortune; but he has always thought more of his duty—more of his country than of himself; and after forty years of noble labour, he has returned home with little more than a name—a glorious name indeed, that will ever be connected, imperishably, with one of the fairest and purest triumphs, not only of his own great country, but of civilization itself. Sir Henry Pottinger has indeed been duly honoured by his most gracious Sovereign; but those honours, in the sense in which we are speaking, although, no doubt, properly valued by him, prevent him from pursuing the course of Indian service, and are a positive injury to him. I believe I may say that had he not gone to China, he would have again filled some very high and lucrative situation in India. I have heard he would have been appointed a Member of Council; but what part can he now accept? He, a Privy Councillor, a Grand Cross of the Bath—can he go to a residency and receive orders from his inferiors in rank and service? No, and so it is; he is, we may say, crushed by his laurels; and after all he has done, is to retire with the pay of a Lieutenant Colonel; for though he has the brevet of a Major General—that is his rank. He that has opened China, and her 300,000,000 to British commerce, is to be left in a condition which, I lament to say, will not enable him to hold his proper place—I may almost say any place, in his own country—in that country to whose glory and prosperity he has so largely contributed! It is superfluous to dwell upon the value of his services in China—they are acknowledged by the whole world, and not only ourselves, but other nations have already hastened to reap the benefit of them. The liberality by which our success was made useful to our great rivals, has been said, and truly, to be without a parallel in the annals of nations; and although the instructions given to Sir Henry Pottinger gave him a latitude of action in that respect, yet much was naturally left to his own management and discretion. The hon. Mover has briefly alluded to the expressions of gratitude which Sir Henry Pottinger has received from various public bodies. I will venture to repeat them more in detail. Sir Henry Pottinger has re-

1385
ceived Addresses, 1st, From the European and Native Inhabitants of Bombay, with Plate; 2nd, From the Chamber of Commerce of Bombay; 3rd, From the Merchants of London, with Plate; 4th, From the East India and China Association, with Plate; 5th, From the Merchants of Liverpool, with Plate; 6th, From the Mercantile Associations of Liverpool; 7th, From the Mayor and Burgesses of Liverpool; 8th, From the Merchants of Manchester; 9th, From the Mercantile Associations of Manchester; 10th, From the Mayor and Burgesses of Manchester; 11th, From 14,000 Operative Workmen in Manchester, signed in nine hours; 12th, From the Merchants of Glasgow; 13th, From the Lord Provost and Council of Glasgow, with the Freedom of the City; 14th, From the Lord Provost and Council of Edinburgh, with the Freedom of the City; 15th, From the Merchants of Belfast; 16th, From the Mayor and Burgesses of Belfast; 17th, From the Merchant Tailors' Company of London, with the freedom of the Corporation; 18th, He has had official intimation that the Freedom of the City of London has been voted to him, and is to be presented to him in a gold box at an entertainment. In addition to these honours, he has been publicly entertained at London, Manchester, Liverpool, Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Belfast; and I would close this enumeration with alluding to the most remarkable meeting, perhaps, ever assembled to do honour to a public man; I mean the dinner at Merchant Tailors' Hall — where men of all parties, Members of the late and present Cabinet—the heads of the commerce and trade of this vast metropolis, united to pay a just tribute of admiration and respect to this distinguished man. Far, far better than any words of my own can be, were those generous praises then bestowed upon him by one best able to appreciate him—I mean Lord Aberdeen. That nobleman, in a speech worthy of himself, and which I had the happiness to hear, thus spoke to the merits of Sir Henry Pottinger:—
"I have for three years been in constant correspondence with Sir Henry Pottinger, and it is no more than truth to declare that I think no mail ever arrived from China without bringing to me fresh reasons to be deeply sensible of his merits, and his just claims to the gratitude of his country. You may readily imagine, that in a country like China, so distant, so different in almost every respect from those of which we have any knowledge, with every desire on the part of the Government at
1386
home to assume responsibility, to give every kind of assistance, to provide by instructions for all contingencies; yet very much, under such circumstances, must always depend upon the judgment and discretion of the person who, on the spot, is to administer the instructions he may receive. I believe there never was a man in whom a Government and the country might more safely repose confidence in such a situation than Sir Henry Pottinger. And permit me to say, that when difficulties arose, as difficulties numerous and weighty did arise unforeseen and unexpected, by his ability, by his firmness, by his perseverance and energy, he was enabled to meet and overcome them all."
Such were the words of Lord Aberdeen; and if, after this eulogy, any testimony to the benefits conferred upon the country by the exertions of this gentleman should be thought wanting, I do not know that I can do better than quote the language used by the Lord Provost of Glasgow at the great entertainment given to Sir Henry Pottinger in that city. His words were—
"The manufactures of our city—the trade of our port—our intercourse with the East, have been much extended in consequence of his efforts; and although we cannot thank him in the high-flown language of the natives of the oriental regions where he has resided so long, we can thank him with great sincerity and cordiality of feeling, and tell him in the plain honest language of British merchants that he has done us good, and we are grateful for it."
Sir, the British merchants have shown their gratitude; it remains for the British House of Commons to show theirs. They are distributors, not only of honours, but other rewards; and though it behoves them to be anxious guardians of the public purse, and though the Ministers of the day must be more especially sparing of such grants, yet I have little fear of the result, and in the hands of the House and of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I most willingly leave the decision on this appeal.
Sir R. Peelsaid, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was a conclusive answer to that of the hon. Mover. It might have been inferred from the speech of the hon. Gentleman, and from his unjust and uncalled-for observations, that there was a disposition on the part of Her Majesty's Government to underrate the exertions and the merits of Sir Henry Pottinger. The House, however, would recollect that there had not been an opportunity afforded in that House on which he had not freely admitted those exertions and merits. He

1387
did, however, state that he had not included the name of Sir H. Pottinger in the vote to Sir Hugh Gough and to Sir W. Parker, because it was so rare that the thanks of the House had been voted for civil or diplomatic services, and because there were often political considerations mixed up with diplomatic services; and he did not propose to vote the thanks of the House also to Sir Henry Pottinger, rather on account of the danger of establishing, or of rather continuing a precedent set by the hon. Gentleman himself, than from a desire to underrate the eminent services of this honourable man. He would put aside for the present the question of the pecuniary reward, though the hon. Gentleman thought that no recognition of public services would be complete without a pecuniary reward. When the present Government succeeded to office, Sir H. Pottinger was not personally known to them, but he was known by name and repute; and they wrote out to assure him that he should have the same full and unbounded confidence from them as he had had from their predecessors. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose drew an invidious distinction between Sir Henry Pottinger and Mr. Davis. The hon. Gentleman said, that Sir H. Pottinger had only an allowance of 6,000 l. a year, and that he had been distinguished for his military services, and that the same remuneration was given to Mr. Davis; but it was not because they gave a particular salary that they distinguished the individual; the salary was attached to the office, and not given to the man. Why, then, did the hon. Gentleman draw the distinction between the merits of Sir H. Pottinger and Mr. Davis? [Mr. Hume: I drew no distinction.] When the Govenment heard that Sir H. Pottinger wished to retire, they did not seek the patronage of the appointment; they besought him to remain. The health, however, of Sir H. Pottinger obliged him at length to retire, after a service in India alone of forty years. The Government were then bound to appoint a successor, and in that appointment they were influenced by no improper motives. They thought it important to select a man having personal experience of the country and the character of its inhabitants; and if the hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir G. Staunton) were in his place, he would admit that no improper motives had influenced the choice. In the course
1388
of his duty Sir H. Pottinger had shown the greatest discretion and moderation; the Government gave him the most ample credit for that exhibition of justice and moderation, which had obtained for him the complete confidence of those who would not otherwise have dealt with the "barbarians," as they called us; they gave him equal credit for the discretion and forbearance with which he treated some of his own countrymen, and they knew not which to praise the most, his moderation towards the Chinese, or his firmness towards his own contrymen. With respect to the hon. Gentleman's remarks on the admission of other countries to the benefits of the improved intercourse with China, no doubt Sir H. Pottinger was desirous of extending those benefits to all nations; but it was due to his noble Friend Lord Aberdeen, and to the noble Lord whom he succeeded, to say that one of the first acts of the present Government was to send out a despatch, dated 4th of November, 1841, to the same effect as a previous despatch of the noble Lord opposite, in which the Government said, "To secure a well-regulated trade is all we desire with China;" and further, "We seek no exclusive advantage; we demand nothing we will not willingly see enjoyed by the subjects of other States." No doubt Sir H. Pottinger, without those instructions, would have acted upon their spirit. I believe, however, that those instructions were conformable to the previous instructions of the noble Lord opposite. Let it be said, therefore, to the credit of the whole country and of all parties, that there was no wish, that there was not, on the part of any one, a desire to secure for ourselves in our intercourse with China, any peculiar or exclusive privileges. One desire was manifested by the noble Lord as the representative of the late Government; by his noble Friend as the representative of the present Government; and by Sir Henry Pottinger himself. Let it be known, then, throughout Europe and the world, that there was no party, that there was no man in the country who wished, on the termination of hostilities in China, to secure any narrow advantage, or one in which all nations should not participate. It would be inferred from the speech of the hon. Gentleman, that the Government had withheld from Sir Henry Pottinger something which they

1389
had it in their power to confer. He (Sir R. Peel) had not stated that Sir H. Pottinger had had the dignity of a Baronet conferred upon him on account of his services in China — that dignity was conferred for his long services in India; but, for his services in China, the Crown had conferred upon him the highest and the most honourable distinction in its gift—except the Garter, which it could not bestow—when it created him Grand Cross of the Bath. The hon. Gentleman might think this an inadequate reward; but the value which Sir Henry attached to it was, because it was a proof of the approbation and the favour of a gracious Sovereign. Again, Sir Henry was made a Privy Councillor. The hon. Gentleman said, that this honour was useless unless it was accompanied by a grant of money; but, he believed, that Sir H. Pottinger was proud of it, not from any personal vanity, but, as an additional mark of his Sovereign's approval. Further, when from the state of his health, Sir Henry was about to return home, the most marked and significant terms were used to convey to him the grateful acknowledgments for his services to his country. Except the particular reward which the hon. Gentleman advocated, there were no rewards and no honours which were withheld. The hon. Gentleman said that they might have conferred a peerage; but he was not quite sure that hereditary honours were always a suitable reward for services in such a case as this. He then came to the question of the pecuniary reward. It would be inferred from the speech of the hon. Gentleman, that the Crown had the power of granting a pension to Sir H. Pottinger, and that this power had not been exercised. Such was not the fact. If the Crown had the power of granting a pension, he would not have hesitated to advise the Crown to confer it; and he would have been tenfold more ready to do so after the disclosure by the right hon. Gentleman of the facts which the modesty and forbearance of Sir H. Pottinger had hitherto concealed from the Government. The Crown had the power to grant the pensions to Sir Gore Ouseley, and in the other cases referred to; but it had not the power in this case. It was all very well for the House of Commons to say that the Crown was niggardly; but who imposed those limitations on the Crown? Why, the House of Commons and the hon. Gentleman. The
1390
Crown could not grant a diplomatic pension to any one, whatever might be his merits or services, unless he had been in the diplomatic service for fifteen years, and had actually served for ten years, nor could the Crown appropriate more than 2,000 l. for any such pension. Now, what was the power of the Crown to grant pensions on the Civil List? For claims on the Royal beneficence, for personal services to the Crown, for eminent public services, and for useful discoveries in science, Her Majesty was limited to grants amounting to 1,200 l. per annum in the whole. But it was asked, why had not the Government come down to the House, and asked for a special grant of an additional pension? Why, there was not a week in which a similar and really meritorious claim could not be made. Take the case of the family of Sir W. Nott, who, after an exhibition of constancy and valour and success which entitled him to reward, returned broken in health, and unable even to receive the expression of public gratitude, or to be presented to his Sovereign; who left two daughters, to whom the East India Company had granted 100 l. a year each; what a case might be made out for him? Or, again, the daughter of an eminent Professor who died the other day in the execution of his public duty at the Royal Society. The House must admit these claims; but it had not given the Crown the power of meeting them; and there were numbers of unobtrusive cases, not so marked as Sir H. Pottinger's, but highly deserving—men, for instance, who devoted the best years of their lives, not to the acquirement of money, but the perfection of mechanical science—and left their families in distress. Was the Minister to be always coming down to the House for a special grant? A period might come when the Legislature might extend the discretion of the Crown; but meanwhile he (Sir R. Peel) was unwilling to establish a precedent capable of so extensive an application. The general rule was, that while public servants remained in health pensions should not be granted, the Crown having offices to bestow, implying great trust and confidence, and carrying a proportionate reward. Sir W. Parker, for instance, was still retained in the service of the Crown; and at the first opportunity for the employment of Sir H. Pottinger, he (Sir R. Peel) should think no man better qualified for a mark of the

1391
favour of the Crown, and no one fitter to be entrusted with the public service. The question now was, whether the House was to make a precedent of a special grant, usurping the prerogative of the Crown to reward public servants. On the whole, however, considering what appeared to be the general feeling of the House—considering that Sir H. Pottinger was withdrawn from India, and thereby lost the advantage of continued service in a diplomatic capacity—considering that the grace and favour of the House of Commons ought not to be impeded by the servants of the Crown—believing that they had done their duty in opposing their own personal wishes, which must be in favour of the liberal reward of a public man, he (Sir R. Peel) should be sorry there should be any division of opinion on the subject, and therefore he should not oppose a compliance with the wishes of the House. He should take upon himself to advise Her Majesty to make a provision for Sir H. Pottinger, as a reward for his eminent public services.
Lord J. Russellwas rejoiced at the conclusion at which the right hon. Baronet had arrived; and if he added a word it would be to express his own opinion on the question, that instead of any reproach falling on Government for neglecting Sir H. Pottinger, it had been forward to recognise his merits and reward his services. He hoped, therefore, that nobody would think there was any party in the House disposed to find fault with the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues for the course they had pursued. If Sir H. Pottinger had not been employed sufficiently long to entitle him to a pension, he (Lord J. Russell) apprehended that the eminence of his services ought to make up for any brevity in their duration. He admitted that the general rule had been correctly stated by the right hon. Baronet; but he held this to be an extraordinary exception. It was impossible to state the services of Sir H. Pottinger more strongly than they had been admitted by the right hon. Gentleman; but with regard to the instructions under which Sir H. Pottinger had acted, as respected exclusive privileges of trade, it was but fit to state that his noble Friend (Lord Palmerston), in one of his original despatches to Captain Elliot, had used these words:—"You will bear in mind that the British Government does
1392
not desire to obtain for British subjects any exclusive privileges of trade, which could not be extended to the subjects of every other power." In this spirit the Treaty had been concluded by Sir H. Pottinger, and he (Lord J. Russell) was happy now to find that his merits were not only universally acknowledged, but were to be substantially rewarded.
Viscount Palmerstoncould not allow the discussion to terminate without stating his great satisfaction with the determination at which the right hon. Baronet had arrived. That determination was as honourable to Ministers, as it must be gratifying to the gallant Officer. He, too, acquitted them of any backwardness in originating the proposition for a pension. He admitted the force of the observations of the right hon. Baronet; the result must be even more satisfactory to the gallant officer, his hon. friend, than if the subject had not been made a matter of discussion; the reward would thus appear, not merely the gift of the Crown, but the suggestion of the Representatives of the Commons of England. He apprehended that no inconvenient risk would be incurred by the establishment of this precedent; for the case stood on strong, but purely exceptional grounds. The concession would come within the spirit and principle of the Statute, though it might not fall within its strict and technical letter. If Sir H. Pottinger had resided only for a few years longer as our Minister to China, no difficulty could have arisen; and the short ness of his services was the only objection to the just reward of them. The truth was, that he had performed great public services in a briefer period than was contemplated by the Act. As to other cases of unknown merits and obscure claims which deserved, but did not obtain, a pecuniary acknowledgment, it might be observed, that rewards were not bestowed so much on the principle of personal desert, as on that of the amount of public benefit conferred. Two stipulations made by Sir H. Pottinger with the noble Earl at the head of Foreign Affairs had been alluded to; but to him Sir H. Pottinger had proposed a third, with which, as the reasons for it were too apparent, he could not refuse to comply: it was, that as he had just returned from India on account of ill health, and as he much feared it might still farther suffer from his new duties, he should not be asked to remain on the Chinese

1393
station after he had rendered the good service he hoped to perform by the accomplishment of his mission. The only circumstance that excited any regret or doubt in his mind, when he took leave of Sir H. Pottinger, was his apparent situation, from which it appeared but too plain that he was unfit to contend against the unwholesome climate which his desire to perform a great public duty had induced him to brave. He had carried out his instructions to the very letter. It was impossible for any man placed in so responsible a situation, to have acquitted himself in a manner more honourable to himself, or satisfactory to his country. The vote which they were about to come to would be alike honourable to all parties concerned in it: to his hon. Friend who had originated the Motion—to the Government who had supported it—to the House of Commons who had given their unqualified approval of it—and to the individual who was the subject of it; and he was sure that there had seldom been a vote which had been more satisfactory to the country at large than that which they were about to come to would be. It might be said that pecuniary rewards were not those to which such men as Sir H. Pottinger would look; but it was conformable to human nature—it was expected and approved of by society—and was in accordance with the practice of the country. When a great victory was obtained by a general or an admiral, he was rewarded by a pecuniary grant; and such a proceeding was sanctioned, not only by custom, but sound policy. He must, in conclusion, say that he was glad to find that the hon. Member for Montrose, who, it was well known, carefully watched the expenditure of public money, was so sensible of the merits of Sir H. Pottinger, as to become the originator of the Motion before the House.
Mr. J. A. Smitheulogized the conduct of Sir H. Pottinger. That gallant officer was no party to the Motion before the House; and it was, therefore, the more honourable and gratifying to him.
Mr. Ross, representing, as he did, the town which gave birth to Sir H. Pottinger, might be excused for bearing testimony to his merit, and saying that he most cordially supported the Motion before the House.
Mr. P. Howardsaid, that the family of Sir H. Pottinger were connected with the
1394
county of Cumberland; and he might, therefore, plead a similar excuse to that of the hon. Member for Belfast for adding his meed of praise to the encomiums which had already been passed on the conduct of the gallant officer. He approved of the manner in which grants of public money were now made by the Crown; and he thanked the Government for the course which they had taken on the present occasion.
Mr. Humewas sorry that the right hon. Baronet had not communicated his determination to him an hour before the House sat, as he should then have been prevented from encroaching so much as he had done upon the time of the House. He was pleased beyond measure to find that the Government had come forward to sanction the proposition which he had made. The course which the right hon. Baronet had taken was most prudent and praiseworthy; and, as he had given his assent to the Motion, he (Mr. Hume) hoped it would be carried nemine contradicente.
Resolution agreed to.

PECULIAR BURDENS ON LAND.
Mr. Wardrose to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice. If it were not for the peculiar aspect of the House, which imported premature dissolution, he might congratulate himself upon the successful issue of two Motions on that (the Opposition) side of the House. He did not observe on the opposite Benches the antagonists whom he was in the habit of seeing there upon all agricultural questions. There certainly was one of them in the gallery (Sir John Tyrell), of whose presence they had had a most unequivocal indication. He was sorry to be obliged to allude to that hon. Gentleman in his absence, and also that he was compelled to bring forward his Motion, notwithstanding the paucity of his usual opponents. The notion of there being peculiar burdens on land was now the last of the agricultural fallacies. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in his speech the other night, had proved that wages had risen as the price of bread had fallen; he had shown that cheap bread did not produce cheap wages; and he had also told his agricultural friends pretty distinctly, that employment did not depend on the home market. The hon. Baronet had, in

1395
fact, swept away all the minor fallacies like so many cobwebs, and had left this great master fallacy of the peculiar burdens upon land, as a solitary remnant of the wreck, to tell of the disappearance of its former comrades. He should not be surprised to find the right hon. Baronet, ere long, using language towards his hon. Friend the Member for Stockport similar to the compliment which the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury had paid to the hon. Member for Montrose, when he said—
"I admire the hon. Member for his zeal and his industry; and, differing, as I do from that hon. Gentleman on political questions, I do say that he has rendered great services to the country. I am a political opponent of that hon. Gentleman, who never gave me a vote in his life; but I am only anticipating the judgment of a grateful posterity when I say that, actuated by high, pure, patriotic, disinterested motives, he has rendered important services to the country."
Mr. M'Culloch had said—
"Land is a species of property that cannot be concealed; it is visible to every one; and the fair presumption consequently is, that it will be more heavily taxed than the capital of the manufacturer or merchant, which it is frequently very difficult to trace."
The allegation that the land pays the larger portion of the burdens of the State, might be true if applied to Austria, where the land paid 37,000,000 out of 73,000,000 of florins to the revenue. It might be true in the case of France, where the tax on land amounted to no less than 268,000,000 of francs in the year 1842; but it was not applicable to this country. In France, all classes joined in legislating for the landed interest; but in England they had the landed interest legislating for itself; and the result always showed that it had no great desire for burdening itself, except as little as possible. It was on that account that those who were brought up in the school of the Corn Laws avoided as much as possible any discussion on the subject of the peculiar burdens which it was alleged were imposed upon them. They knew the weakness of their case perfectly well, and they, therefore, did not come near the House when the question was to be discussed there. They shrunk from discussion; they ran away; they did anything rather than meet the question. And why? Because they knew how rotten was the case which they had to support. They had a
1396
bold way of speaking among themselves, that really meant nothing at all, while they shrank from any inquiry into the question in a place like that House, where they knew that they would be met and answered. But he did not wonder at it. The history of the protection, the continuance of which was insisted on by the landed interest in that House, was such as to leave them no other alternative. He would ask of hon. Members to bear with him for a few moments while he went through a review of the proceedings of the protectionists for the last few months. It was well known that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have a large surplus to deal with at the commencement of the present Session, and the landed interests did not neglect the opportunity — in accordance with their usual policy—of seeking to acquire a portion of it for their own benefit. The landowners did not lose one moment in making their demand. He did not forget the great meeting, as it was called, which was held at Freemasons' Hall, of which the Morning Post of the morning following said that it contained—
"Nine hundred selected representatives of the agriculturists of Great Britain, at great personal expense and inconvenience, met to record their unqualified condemnation of the free trade tendency of modern legislation, and their firm determination to permit no Minister to infringe one iota of the small fraction of protection still left to them."
It also added that—
"The speeches were pregnant with matter," and spoke of "facts and arguments of the most irresistible character; no tameness, no hesitation, no paltering—a glorious combination of all that is great and good against all that is insidious, and factious, and detestable."
But what were the objects of their hoslity? Listen to the sentiments of some of the speakers. Lord Beaumont said—
"A Parliament, which he was ashamed to call agricultural, had passed three fatal measures—the Corn Law, the Canada Corn Bill, and the Tariff—and for this sacrifice on their part there had been no gain to compensate it, no removal of burdens."
Mr. Miles said—
"All classes taken in detail by the Tariff, and all injured."
And, again, speaking of the Canada Corn Bill he said—
"If they combined to make an attack upon that abominable measure, they would do much

1397
to remove a source of past injury, pregnant with future danger."
The Duke of Buckingham spoke of "hopes and expectations blighted — but, thank God, a stop had been put at last to the plunder of the agriculturists." Happily these things were of no sort of consequence. It was but a safety valve, an agricultural saturnalia; but the liberties which were taken with the good name of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Peel) were made up for by the most implicit acquiescence in his policy. The right hon. Baronet sets the Buckingham election against the Duke's speech—the vote for the Budget against the repeal of the Tariff and the Canada Corn Law—and has the best of the bargain. But the mischief done by meetings of this sort in the country were incalculable. People ran away with false notions, coupled them with great names, and fancy that they were ruined because Lord Beaumont and the Duke of Buckingham told them so, instead of seeing that they were suffering under the consequences of their own legislation. An instance of this was afforded by the Herefordshire agricultural meeting. He was always proud of his own county. And they appeared to have there a happy knack at out-Heroding Herod, whether they dealt with corn or Catholics. Some of their calculations were perfectly "impayable." Mr. Passingham said, that "agricultural property was depreciated at least 25 per cent. by Sir Robert Peel's measures." Mr. Hainworth "calculated that by the Corn Law and the Tariff as much as 60,000,000 l. had been taken from the agricultural capital of this country." Mr. Delme Radcliffe—
"appealed to the agriculturists throughout the length and breadth of the land, whether their interests had not been spurned and despised by the very Ministers whom they had raised to power. They might say with the eagle, killed by the shaft feathered from his own wing—
'Keen are our pangs, but keener far to feel
We nursed the pinion that impelled the steel.'
There was no difference between Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Cobden, or rather the only difference was this—that the one was an important foe, the other all powerful for mischief."
And Mr. Heathcote, extending the compliment to that side of the House, said, "there was little hope in a change of Government. Sir Robert Peel and Lord John Russell, like Herod and Pontius Pilate, had long ago shaken hands to be-
1398
tray the truth." Lord Salisbury, who was more reasonable, said—
"The only object of the agriculturists was to secure that protection which every other trade enjoyed in proportion to the peculiar burdens of taxation which they had to bear."
Mr. Ryder, who was the only man who talked common sense, gave an answer to the "sixty millions" of depreciation by saying—
"That there were only 3,700 beasts imported, being but one week's supply for London, and 227,000 quarters of Canada corn."
He then added, that—
"When it was understood that the Ministers had a surplus, and intended to remit a portion of the existing burdens of the country, he (Mr. Ryder) and others looked carefully over the list of those burdens, and he confessed that they could not lay their fingers upon one which specifically bore upon the agricultural interests; at, least there was but one—the Malt Tax—and that it was clearly impossible for the Minister to abandon."
The condition of Hertford served as the type of the confusion that existed as to the results of their own legislation. But who could pity them? If they could fix prices, they were justly responsible for not fixing them more satisfactorily. If they could not, why not tell the farmers that they had been labouring under "an awful delusion," and that their prosperity must depend upon that of the country. He would next come to the meeting, which had been held at Chelmsford, of the Protection Society for the county of Essex; and really the confusion at the tower at Babel was but a joke in comparison to that which was witnessed there. They did not know why they were called together — who called them—what they were called for—or what they were to do when they had come. [The hon. Member read the account of their proceedings, which corresponded to his description.] When they had declarations of that sort emanating from gentlemen in the country, who, he supposed it would be admitted, were interested in the question, he would ask hon. Gentlemen in that House, whether it were not time to have done with the nuisance? The whole question was reduced to this: Had the landed interest, or had they not, peculiar burdens affecting them, and which they were entitled to call upon the Legislature to remove? He asked them to discuss that question. He asked them to enter into it that evening, fully, and fairly and man-

1399
fully. Would they do so, or would they shrink from the discussion again, and let another Session pass by—for it could not be more — without the courage to face the inquiry which he demanded? They were told by an hon. Friend of his, in a recent debate, that improvements were necessary in agriculture, and that they could not expect to have them made as long as the present system of protection continued. They knew that they could not improve the land without capital; that they could not get capital until the cultivators had the protection of leases; and that men would not take leases until they knew what was to be done with the Corn Laws. He was speaking a few days since to an extensive farmer in his own neighbourhood, whose name he would not, for obvious reasons, mention. That gentleman told him that he had long been opposed to a repeal of the Corn Laws; but he added that nothing could be more injurious to agriculturists than the perfect uncertainty in which the question now existed. Hon. Gentlemen opposite never had a better Parliament for deciding on the matter for their advantage than the present; but if they refused doing so, how many years, he would ask, would they assign for the existence of the present law? Were not the opponents of free trade losing ground every day. Did not an hon. Member opposite (Mr. Escott) make an admirable speech the other night against the Corn Laws? The Gentleman to whom he had before alluded mentioned a remarkable instance of the value of improvement in agriculture. He had told him that on an Essex heavy land farm, the average produce under the old system of two white crops and a fallow for twenty years, ending in 1833, was twenty bushels of wheat and twenty-four bushels of barley; while under the new system, on an average of eleven years, the produce was—wheat thirty bushels, and barley forty-two bushels. Now what was the obstacle to making this great improvement general? It was clearly the Corn Law. He asked for an inquiry into the fact. He wanted nothing more; and surely the House was entitled to know something about those burdens on agriculture of which they heard so much, and which were taken as the basis of their most important legislation. When the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) introduced the foundation of the present legislation in February, 1842, he said—
1400
1. "You are entitled to put such a duty on foreign corn as is equivalent to the special burdens which you impose upon agriculture. 2. But an additional protection to agriculture can be vindicated only on the ground that it is for the interest of the country in general."
But the interests of the country gentlemen had been of late completely given up by the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary. If hon. Gentlemen were capable of following the argument of the right hon. Baronet, they must perceive that it went to the extent which he alleged. They appeared, however, not to be willing to believe either the right hon. Baronet or him (Mr. Ward); but he would tell them that their case was equally damaged by themselves in refusing inquiry, and in the extravagance of their own pretensions—pretensions which were most absurd and untenable. He would just recall some of the arguments. Lord Abingdon said that "the land bears all the burden of taxation;" and when he was interrupted in his remark by some expression of surprise, he qualified the statement by adding, "at least, in the ratio of four to one." Then came the hon. Member for Somersetshire, who asserted that "the land pays half of the Income Tax;" and he was followed by the hon. Member for Norfolk, who contended that the land paid the whole of the poor rates. The Duke of Richmond said, that the land paid all the charge of the Church and of the administration of justice, from the constable to the workhouse chaplain. "On what principle was the landed interest required to pay for the apprehension of every prisoner, for his maintenance in prison, and for his prosecution?" The landed interest did not do this: the county rates did it; and the county rates were part of the poor rates, one half of which was paid, not by the land, but by other property. Then came the Duke of Newcastle—"the Premier that is to be," "the coming man," who thought that—
"As far as my recollection serves me, not one good measure has passed since the entrance into office of the present Administration. The amor patriæ extinct—the amor sui its substitute. Land utterly neglected..… The cultivator of the soil is in utter despondency and alarm. He has long been the most ill-used and most neglected of our fellow-subjects. He knows not how to act. He feels, from sad experience, that he, who is the mainstay of the country, is buffeted about in bewildering uncertainty, knowing that he is not protected or encouraged, but milked like

1401
his own cows, or shorn like his own sheep, to pay, mayhap, some Popish Endowment or other misapplication of his contributions."
That was a touching picture, wanting nothing but truth to give it sublimity. But was it the fact that the land bore all the burden of taxation? On referring to the gradual increase of the Customs, he found that the amount in the following years stood thus:—1596, Elizabeth, 50,000 l.; 1613, James, 148,000 l.; 1689, William III., 781,000 l.; 1763, George III., 2,000,000; 1815, 11,000,000 l.; 1842, 22,850,000 l.; giving a rise from 50,000 l. to 23,000,000 l. in two hundred and fifty years, a pretty effective contribution to revenue. But they were told that land paid more than half of the Income Tax. By the Papers moved for by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, he was able to make the following analysis of the Income Tax:—

REAL PROPERTY—ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND—ANNUAL VALUE.

£.

s.

d.

Land — England and Wales

40,167,088

5

7½

Scotland

5,586,527

13

3

£45,753,615

18

10½

Tithes

1,960,330

0

0

Manors

152,216

0

0

Total land

£47,866,161

18

10½

OTHER PROPERTY.

England and Scotland—Houses, factories, wharfs, business premises, &c.

38,475,738

0

0

Quarries

240,483

0

0

Mines

2,081,387

0

0

Iron Works

559,435

0

0

Fisheries

58,114

0

0

Canals

1,307,923

0

0

Railways

2,598,942

0

0

Other Property

1,776,296

0

0

Total Annual Value

£47,098,288

0

0

M'Culloch stated in his last work on "Taxation" that Schedule A having produced 2,150,412 l. 10 s. 9d., at 7d. per 1l., must have been assessed on 73,728,430 l., instead of which, the real property return proves the annual value of property included under Schedule A to be, 95,284,497 l.; of which land paid as nearly half as possible.
Schedule A—Net duty received April 5, 1843, £2,150,412 10 9.

Land one half

1,025,206

5

4½

Add Schedule B — Tenants' profits

298,763

0

0

Total paid by land

£1,323,969

5

4½

1402

Net duty received under Schedule D. April 5, 1843—Trades and professions

1,466,985

9

8

Under Schedules A and B — Land

1,323,969

5

4¼

£143,016

4

3¼

So that land, instead of paying all the Income Tax, or half, actually pays less by 143,016 l. than the amount received from trades and professions. Then came the argument of his hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, respecting the poor rates being paid by the land. In the last Report of the Poor Law Commissioners, he found it stated that—
"There is no doubt that the yearly produce of the rateable property of England has undergone a very great increase since 1813; and that its annual progress is now rapid. The total annual value of real property assessed to the Property Tax in 1815 in England and Wales, was 51,898,423 l., whereas the amount in 1843 was 85,802,735 l. It is further to be observed, that the increase in the annual value of rateable property arises, not only from the improved cultivation of the land, and its consequently increased productiveness; but also, to a great extent, from the large number of new houses and other buildings (such as manufactories and warehouses), as well as railways, canals, wharfs, &c., which are constructed from year to year. Accordingly, land, as such, pays a smaller proportion of the local rates in each successive year; and a larger proportion falls on the other sorts of rateable property. This fact appears from the table inserted in our Ninth Annual Report, par. 27, which shows, that whereas the proportion of the poor's rate falling upon land was 69 per cent., and that falling on other property was 31 per cent.; in 1826, the proportion falling on land was only 52 per cent., and on other property 48 per cent., in 1841."
By a reference to the present year, he was told, it would appear that the proportion paid by the land was still smaller. Mr. M'Culloch, in his recent "Treatise on Taxation and the Funding System," has the following remarks:—
"Exclusive of tithe, the land is burdened with an extra weight of other taxes. Poor rates and county rates of all descriptions have always fallen much heavier on it than on any other species of fixed property; and, though within the last few years some of the more striking anomalies in their assessment have been removed, they still continue to press with disproportioned severity on the land. Moneyed fortunes also, and funded and other moveable

1403
property, are exempted from all local burdens. An individual may have 100,000 l. engaged in trade, or vested in the public funds, in mortgages, or in stock of the Banks of England or Scotland, without being subject to tithe, or to any of those taxes for the poor and other local objects that fall on the owner of the smallest patch of land, as well as on most other descriptions of fixed property. There may be reasons to justify this exemption; but the fact of its existing proves sufficiently that land and other fixed property is peculiarly affected by taxation. It will be afterwards seen that the malt tax, though of course it falls directly on the consumers, is, in its indirect operation, particularly injurious to agriculture; and, being a grievance peculiar to this department, it would entitle the agriculturists, had they no other claims to urge, to a countervailing duty on the importation of foreign corn. Such being the case, the agriculturists are clearly justified in demanding, in the event of the free importation of corn being permitted, that it should be burdened with a fixed or constant duty sufficient to countervail the peculiar charges that would fall on the land, were the ports unconditionally opened. It is impossible to refuse them this, without trampling on every fair principle. Such protection is not given to the agriculturists as a favour, but to keep them where they have a right to be kept—on the same level as the other classes of their countrymen. If they be relieved from these peculiar burdens, the necessity for the countervailing duties will of course cease, and they may, and indeed should, be repealed forthwith; but the equalization of taxation at home should, in all cases, precede the repeal of duties on importation. It is not possible, perhaps, to form any very accurate estimate of what the countervailing duty should amount to; but it would not, we apprehend, be difficult to show that, by fixing it at 5s. or 6s. a quarter on wheat, and other grain in proportion, the justice of the case would be satisfied, and the interests of the agriculturists and those of the public conciliated, and most effectually promoted. A duty of this amount would preserve all parties in the same relative situation after the opening of the ports as previously; and would treat them, as they should ever be treated, with equal and impartial justice."
As to the tithe, he would leave it altogether out of the question; for he regarded it as a charge to which the land was liable, before the title of the oldest Norman Baron commenced. He trusted, therefore, that he should never see the example of Ireland followed, and 25 per cent. of this tax sacrificed to the landlords, who had no claim to it. With respect to the malt tax, that certainly was a very fair subject for inquiry. As for the poor rates, he differed entirely from the opinion of Mr. M'Culloch, and he saw nothing that justified such a dis-
1404
tinction being drawn. The valuations and the deductions for poor rates were the same on different descriptions of property, and if landed property paid more, it was because that description of property was more valuable. He had gone over this subject with great care, and he had been most anxious not to deceive himself on the point, and had made the strictest inquiry into the matter. He would take a parish with which he was connected, and which was partially agricultural, and which contained a comparatively large town, namely, Ware, in Hertfordshire, where a great trade in malt was carried on; and he found that, the same principle as regarded rating existed with respect to both description of property. He found that farms containing 697 acres were assessed at 725 l., and were rated at 576 l. 14 s., deductions being made for insurance, repairs, &c. There had been for the last two years three poor rates at a shilling in the pound each year, being for each rate 28 l. 16 s. 8d. for the year, or 86 l. 10 s. for the whole period. The surveyors' or highway rate, at eightpence in the pound, one rate each year, was 19 l. 4s. 6d.; church rates, at fourpence in the pound, 9l. 12 s. 3d. The county rate, assessed at 1½d. in the pound, with the police rate, assessed at 1¼d. in the pound, upon the rental of 725 l. was paid out of the poor rates. Another farm, containing 148 acres, was assessed at 219 l. 10 s. 6d., and rated at 174 l. 5s. 6d.; and the rates amounted to 34 l. 17 s. 6d. On the other hand, he would take a malting establishment in Ware, belonging to the same owner as the former property, which was rated at 202 l. Another malting house was rated at 149 l. 10 s.; and a third at 135 l. Now, it appeared these paid 40 l. 19 s. rates per annum. Maltings were rated according to the quantity, the steep at 2l. per quarter, so that if a malting steeps 50 quarters, it was rated at 100 l. Malt steeps were rated at about 2l. per steep, of which 110 belonged to one firm, and were rated at 220 l. Now, this certainly might be considered equal to the rating of land in the neighbourhood. On inquiry, also, he found that the same was the case in the neighbouring districts of the county. The tendency, however, was rather to benefit the land unduly at the expense of the other interests. For instance, this was particularly the case as regarded railways. The rates upon that description of property had be-

1405
come an enormous abuse, and the spread of the evil could only be prevented by expensive legal process. Indeed, in assessing railways, the first principle seemed to be that a railway had no remedy. The rating was taken on the profits of capital and stock. This was different from other interests; for all other stock in trade was specially exempted. He would instance what he meant, in the case of the Birmingham railway, with respect to which the rates were arbitrarily increased in 1843 not less than 18,000 l. a year. The average rateable value of the land in parishes through which it runs, was 30 s. 3d. per acre. The whole rate per mile for the railway was from 800 l. to 2,000 l. a year, or from 80 l. to 2,00 l. per acre. He would take the parish of Milton, where the railway paid 2,000 l. per mile, or on ten acres, while the rate on the whole of the rest of the parish was 1,355 l. Again, take the Great Western: he found that in the parish of Burnham, Bucks, the railway paid rates of 2,920 l. per mile, or 292 l. per acre. This was a double injustice, for the county and all the other rates increased in proportion with the increased assessment in the poor rates, and the tithes also increased in the ratio of the increase of the other rates. As for the highway rate, he would ask any gentleman connected with land, whether he could imagine an instance of any man who would take a farm which had not a road to it. Need he then say, that these roads improved the value of land; and the landowners certainly met with more than an equivalent advantage for the expenses of this rate. But if they took all the rates chargeable on land, and charged them on the Consolidated Fund, they must do the same with regard to all rates payable in towns. Why was the agricultural county of Kent to be exempted from the payment of its police, and not the parish of Marylebone? Why were the inhabitants of London, where, indeed, all the Members of the House resided for a certain portion of the year, to be made to pay sewer and other local rates, while you exempted the country districts from any such payment? It was clear, if you adopted the principle, you must apply it equally to both parties. When the Duke of Richmond complained of the expense to the counties of the administration of justice, and that that charge ought to be defrayed out of the Consolidated Fund,
1406
was he aware that if this were adopted, they must change the whole system which now existed? If the Government were charged with the expenses of the gaols, they certainly must have the control over those who filled the gaols; and the whole system of unpaid magistrates must be put an end to; and they must have stipendiary magistrates throughout the country, as in France and Prussia. This might be a very good suggestion, and the arrangement might be desirable, but he did not believe that the noble Duke calculated on such a result. But even supposing that they could make out some part of their case, and show that some inequalities existed which fell on them more than on others, and that there were some little disparities which ought to be equalized, the Committee into which he hoped they would consent to go was a proper place to investigate the matter. But they must satisfy him that these claims of protection by the landed interest, in consequence of the existence of such burdens, really existed before he could come to Mr. M'Culloch's conclusion. But now he must really refer to the exceptions which existed as regarded landed property from burdens which were imposed on other interests. He did not like to trouble the House again in going into this subject at length, as he had so often gone into it on former occasions; but they should recollect that there never was a country in which land was so excepted from heavy burdens, which fell upon other interests. Take, for instance, the legacy and probate duty. There was none on real property. The total amount raised since 1797 upon other property was about 60,000,000 l., and of this amount not one shilling was derived from the land. Then, again, take the house duty. In 1825 there were 527,000 houses assessed, and 136,000 farm houses were excepted. If subject to the same payment of the duty from 1803 to 1834, when this tax was repealed, the Revenue would have received 5,000,000 l. more than it had. Again, there was formerly a tax upon horses used in husbandry; this duty was repealed in 1822, and the Revenue lost 470,000 l. a year. There were also a great number of other exceptions to the payment of the duty on horses belonging to those connected with the land. In the first place, the exception from the duty was made on horses ridden by occupiers of farms at less than 200 l. a year.

1407
Then this exception was increased to those under 500 l. a year rent; then for all horses ridden by bailiffs; then for all horses occasionally let out for hire; then upon all brood mares. Another exception from taxation was in connexion with fire insurances; 3s. in the pound was the ordinary fire insurance duty, but there was no duty on insuring farming stock. Again, 1l. 11 s. 6d. was charged as a tax upon each saddle horse used in any other trade, but on farmers' horses there was none. Again, with respect to servants, farmers paid no charge for husbandry servants occasionally used as domestic servants. They had also been relieved from the duties on sheep dogs, tax carts, and horses drawing them. There were also no tolls on lime, manure, &c. They had been exempted from the tax on tiles used for draining; they had also been exempted from the tax on stewards, overseers, bailiffs, and clerks employed under them. No window duty was charged under 200 l. a year rent. The total reduction, then, of taxes affecting the agricultural interest between the years 1816 and 1834, according to the able table made out by the hon. Member for Montrose, amounted to nearly 13,000,000 l. According to the same document, if they had been made to pay the probate and legacy duty since 1797, the exemption from taxation would have amounted to from 70,000,000 l. to 72,000,000 l. Now, what were the burdens? Why was labour employed on land entitled to exemption not given in any other business? He might be told that they should not touch this particular branch of industry—that it was unwise to tax the means and the elements of production. No doubt this might be sound; but then the exemption should be universal, and they should extend it to labour employed in manufactures, in mines, collieries, factories, and all equally valuable, but not equally encouraged, because they had not got the ear of the Legislature. If there were exemptions, they should be fair and equitable between one interest and another, and not as now standing out in odious contrast. Now, with respect to the land tax, the revenue of the country was 51,000,000 l.; the land tax amounted to 1,817,000 l. This tax was originally imposed at the rate of 5s. in the pound on the rental. If they now took the rental of the country at the amount generally
1408
taken, namely, 47,000,000 l., this tax would now produce upwards of 9,000,000 l. Last year they would find that the customs, the excise, and stamp duties, with half of the assessed taxes, produced 46,042,135 l., out of a total income of 57,137,991 l., including 5,387,455 l. property tax, of which land did not contribute more than 1,323,969 l., including the charge of the tax on tenants' profits. It was obvious from these facts that the landed interest had exemptions from taxation to a much larger amount than was their due proportion. But even supposing that they were entitled to some exemptions, the present mode of levying a duty on corn was the very worst that could be adopted. This had been the opinion repeated over and over again by many of the most able public servants. It had been so stated by Mr. Porter, by Mr. M'Gregor, and by Mr. Deacon Hume. Was the hon. Member aware that Mr. Deacon Hume had been repeatedly praised by the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, as one of the first and most able men in the public service? All these Gentlemen said, that this mode of giving compensation was a double injustice; and he would venture to say, that the landed interest could not find a single man who had the slightest pretence to the character of a statesman, who would defend these laws. It had repeatedly been found that able men had gone to the Board of Trade with opposite feelings, and had come out of it at the end of twelve months advocates of the principle of free trade. They might not at once go to the full extent, as they became hampered with party feelings and interests. Now, take the case of the right hon. Member for Newark, the late President of the Board of Trade, who at once admitted the soundness of the principles of free trade; and the only exceptions that he made had connexion with party considerations. Take, again, the noble Lord now at the head of the Board of Trade. He (Mr. Ward) had seen a report of a recent conversation that had passed in another place between that noble Lord and the Duke of Richmond, and he never saw sounder doctrines of free trade principles more clearly put forth. It appeared to him that the only person that the advocates of extreme protection could select for their Minister was the Duke of Newcastle; and if he wrote ano-

1409
ther letter, he was just as likely to become Pope as Premier. He would ask what arguments he might expect from the Government after the opinions of the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite the other night? He could not conceive that they could adduce any arguments against his Motion after what had passed. In former years inquiry was objected to in consequence of the fear of shaking the agricultural interest; but those two right hon. Gentlemen had given notice that there was something unstable in the system of protection. But after the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, the other night, had said that he could not hold out the hope of continued protection, and the First Lord of the Treasury had said that the system was such that it was perfectly mad to suppose they could go on with it, and had also taken credit to himself for what he had done during the last four years, in which time he had made cautious but extensive changes, such as circumstances had rendered requisite to the commercial interests of the country, and that he would persevere in the same course although it should cost him the support of every member of the agricultural interest; after this, he could not conceive what ground of objection there could be to his Motion on the part of the Government, as the first step to further proceedings might well be preceded by inquiry. The hon. Member for Dorsetshire said that he did not like the first stone to be taken out of the arch, the end of which would strip every particular interest of protection. This was why he (Mr. Ward) wished in the first instance to apply the principle to land; for this he wished to give the agricultural body some interest in removing protection from all others. He was sure, if this was the case, they would become active free traders, and if they took away protection from corn, the landed interest would take care to have it removed from tea, coffee, sugar, timber, and all other articles of consumption. Why then not join with him, and take the first step to get rid of protection? By doing so they would get rid of a shame and a disgrace, which they would soon find that it was impossible for them to continue. He would ask what had they gained by protection? Was it wise that any distinct class should put itself forward to demand claims in opposition to
1410
the interests of the great body of the people? All the most sensible men in that interest admitted that they could only claim protection on the ground of being subject to peculiar burdens. Even the hon. Member for Essex admitted that the question was, whether land was not exposed to peculiar burdens, and he challenged a full and fair inquiry into this subject. Would they go into it as men, or shrink from it as cowards? He did not care which course hon. Gentlemen took; in the one case he was confident as to the result, and in the other he must leave the country to draw their own conclusions. The hon. Gentleman concluded with moving—
"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire whether there are any peculiar burthens specially affecting the Landed Interest of this Country, or any peculiar exemptions enjoyed by that Interest, and to ascertain their nature and extent."
Mr. Sidney Herbertfelt that he laboured under some difficulty in replying to the speech of the hon. Member, who upon this as upon all questions of this kind, had brought a great number of details before the House; but before he proceeded further he might be permitted to observe that the hon. Gentleman had set an example which he hoped would be followed throughout the course of a debate on a subject which often gave rise to much heat and animosity, namely, that he had spoken with much good humour. With respect to the speech of the hon. Member, he (Mr. Herbert) felt that if there was any confusion on the subject before, the hon. Gentleman, by the course he had that night taken, had added to the amount. Although a considerable change had taken place in public opinion as to the effects of the measures brought forward by Her Majesty's Ministers, which they had been told would introduce ruin to the agricultural interest, and which they had also been told had been brought forward at a most improper period, he was glad to find that the complaints on this subject were subsiding. He was often surprised to hear the principles of free trade, in themselves abstractedly true, advocated on such very different grounds, and he suspected that the nature of the argument was oftener adapted to the audience to which it was addressed, than to the subject itself. This was so often the case, that men are often at a loss to understand what object the free traders had in view. The noble Lord the Member for the city of

1411
London, the other night, in proposing his Resolutions, suggested four plans that could be adopted, but they all involved the principle of protection. From the line of argument taken by the hon. Member that evening, it was clear there must be a wide difference of principle between him and the noble Lord; whereas between the Government and the noble Lord there was only a difference in degree. If any one had come into the House during some parts of the speech of the hon. Member, he would have found it difficult to say on which side the hon. Gentleman intended to argue. He denied that the hon. Member had succeeded in showing that the landed interest of this country enjoyed advantages over the same interest in other countries, or in this. The noble Lord distinctly admitted there were burdens on land which must be relieved before they altered the Corn Law. The hon. Member adverted to the circumstance that in France the land tax was much greater than it was in this country. This was true as regarded the land tax; but the hon. Member forgot to state that there were no tithes in France. The hon. Gentleman said that it was little to the credit of the landed interest of this country that the land tax was not equal to that of France, and that such a state of things was calculated to be productive of mischief. He thought if he mad any comparison with France on the charge of the selfishness of the exemption of land from taxation, he should have mentioned the distinction existing between the property of the nobility and the non-nobility of that country, which produced such strong feelings of alienation in the minds of the lower classes as was one of the main causes of the Revolution. As for tithes, the hon. Gentleman, when he referred to authorities as to their nature, rather surprised him that he did not allude to the opinions of Mr. M'Culloch, Dr. Adam Smith, or Dr. Paley; all those authorities distinctly stated that tithes were a tax and a burden on land. He was not stating his own opinion, but that of those high authorities. On rich soils tithes did not fall so heavily; but on poor soils they took a larger proportion of produce, raised with an additional outlay of capital, and these latter were the lands which would most suffer in case of a repeal of the Corn Laws. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the last Report of the Poor Law Commissioners, in which it was stated that the poor rates had diminished on land in
1412
consequence of the rating of railways, and of the demand for labour in the manufacturing districts, and that this state of things was likely to continue. He was glad that such comfortable news could be communicated to agricultural Gentlemen, who looked with such despondency on what had recently occurred; but what the hon. Member now proposed had for its object to take away all chance of relief and improvement from them. He was not certain that the argument of the hon. Gentleman on this subject was a fair mode of discussing the question. It was admitted on all hands that the manufactures of the country were now in a state of great prosperity, and that there was such a demand for hands and labour that the rate of wages had risen; and that, so far from persons being out of work, it was found difficult to get workpeople. But he begged the hon. Member to recollect, that when there was a large demand for labour in the manufacturing districts, they had to obtain workpeople from the agricultural districts; and, if there was any falling-off in the demand for manufactures, or when the manufacturing labourers became old and infirm, they had to go back to the rural districts, from whence they came, and become chargeable to these districts. This was a great burden on the land. He said nothing of highway rates benefiting and town, the country equally, but borne exclusively by the latter. The hon. Gentleman expressed his astonishment at the emptiness of the House, and yet admitted that they discussed the Corn question on the Tariff, on the Sugar Duties, and on the Resolutions of the noble Lord the Member for London. He thought they should better perform their duties as legislators by endeavouring to pass practical measures of legislation, instead of discussing theories, on the application of which every man entertained a different view. If they discussed the Corn question on three or four nights instead of fifteen, they would infuse much more vigour into their debates on that subject, and would be able to apply their minds to other questions in which their constituents took just as great an interest as in the Corn Laws. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton said the other night, that he had treated the Members of that House with disrespect in saying, "Give me the names of your Committee, and I'll tell you their Report." If evidence was required, or a question on which party feeling had no bearing, a Committee of that House was a good tribunal

1413
for receiving it; but on such a question as the Corn Laws, on which all men have preconceived and definite opinions, the moment the Committee was struck each party would anticipate the result, and the Report would have no other effect than to bring discredit on the Committees of that House. He was sure that if the agricultural party continued in the path which they were now taking, exerting themselves manfully in the work of improving the land by the investment of capital — abstaining from making complaints, and rejecting the seductive proposals of the hon. Member for Stockport, who proposed to better their condition by reducing the price of produce, he was sure that in a short time their temporary difficulties would be overcome.
Mr. Cobden: The right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down said, there was no one in that House who had not a distinct opinion on the question of the Corn Laws. Judging from the speech of that right hon. Gentleman, there was one exception to that rule—the right hon. Gentleman himself. He must acknowledge he was completely at a loss to determine what was the drift of the right hon. Gentleman's argument. He could not tell at that moment whether the right hon. Gentleman maintained that tithes belonged to the landlord or the Church. The right hon. Gentleman argued the question of tithes as if they were then collected under the old system; but as at present levied, tithes were no more a burden on the landlord than on the shopkeeper. He had found himself in cathedral cities defending the right of the clergy to the tithes, as opposed to the landlords. Again, as to the poor rates; if the manufacturer did not pay rates on the straps of his machinery, neither did the landlord on his standing corn. The hon. Member for Essex cast a jealous eye on such establishments as Storr and Mortimer's, and asked why they were not assessed to the poor. But if the proprietors of such establishments read the pamphlets of protectionists distributed at Pall Mall, they would find the capital in land set down at 250,000,000 l., while that allowed to manufactures and trades was but 80,000,000 l. Let the hon. Baronet go into any shop in the Strand, and ask the owner what proportion his taxes (he left out his assessed and window taxes, which were paid to the State)—but what proportion his payments
1414
for paving, lighting, watching, and sewerage, bore to the rental, and he challenged the hon. Baronet to say that the shopkeepers of the towns did not pay local burdens to quite as great an extent as the farmers. He should recommend his hon. Friend (Mr. Ward), if he made this Motion next year to omit the word "exclusive," as applied to burdens on the land; for the common sense of the country treated such a proposition as nothing more than a thing to be laughed at. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herbert), played a part which did not sit well on him, that of a sophist, and his fallacies were perfectly transparent; and if the Government had no better case than that presented by the right hon. Gentleman, they must suffer as great a disaster that night as on any previous debate during the Session, and that was saying a great deal. Granting that agriculture paid all the taxes, still the protection they claimed was no advantage to them. If protection was admitted to be an impediment to trade, and to the development of the resources of the country, it could not be a benefit to agriculture. The noble Member for London proved, as one of the leading principles of his Resolutions, that protection was the bane of agriculture. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government gave his unqualified approval to that proposition. He believed that amongst enlightened agriculturists two opinions would not be held on the subject in twelve months hence. He hoped that higher ground would be soon taken than this bandying of injustice from one interest to the other. He knew the opinion was spreading rapidly (and he did not speak from any public demonstration), that manufacturers, merchants, shopkeepers, and landowners, had but a common interest. He could never believe that a system which tended to restrict trade, and to retard the increase of wealth and population, could be beneficial to farmers and landed proprietors. He should conclude by a remark as to Mr. M'Culloch, who had been quoted by the right hon. Gentleman. He wished to speak with respect of men of science, and he was willing to admit that, as a pains-taking statistician, Mr. M'Culloch had done considerable service; but, as an authority on political economy, he was not aware that that gentleman had added a single new idea to the science. He had been a commentator

1415
on Adam Smith, and, like the commentators of Shakspeare, he made dark what was before light. On the Bank of England, and on the Corn Law question, this gentleman had a strange facility in shifting his views to the exigencies of parties and politicians. And when he was quoted as an authority on political economy, he begged it to be understood, that he at all events did not bow down to Mr. M'Culloch.
Mr. Newdegatesaid, that he for one lamented that the Speaker was occupied by the duties of the Chair; not but that he fully appreciated the value of the right hon. Gentleman's services in maintaining the dignity and authority of that House so ably as he did, but because the House and the country stood sadly in need of men possessing such experience and ability as the right hon Gentleman had in the discussion of this most important subject. The hon. Member for Sheffield had made free use of the fashion set by the noble Lord the Member for London, who had declared that in his estimation protection was the bane of agriculture—a fashion which it appeared the two right hon. Baronets, Secretaries of State, desired to follow. Now if these right hon. Gentlemen were really of opinion that protection was injurious to the best interests of England, he (Mr. Newdegate) could not but pity those right hon. Gentlemen, who had for years knowingly contributed to perpetuate the infliction of injury upon their country. One, however, most important and necessary element of this inquiry had been touched upon, though but slightly, by the noble Lord, on the discussion of his late Resolutions; namely, the effect of the present high value of our currency upon the interests of agriculture. That this point must form an element of the proposed inquiry, no one could doubt who had read the financial statement of the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, when introducing the Property Tax in 1842. With reference to the rental of land, he said—
"Now I cannot doubt that the return of peace and the cessation of war prices must have had a considerable effect in reducing the rental of land; and, taking into consideration the effect of the restoration of the currency, the rental of land may probably at first have fallen far below that amount; but still, when I look at the improvement which agriculture has received from mechanism, and the application of science to land, I cannot but entertain a conviction that the present rental of
1416
land must be equal to the rental in the year 1814."*
And he (Mr. Newdegate) would presently show that the right hon. Baronet was not far wrong in his reckoning. He had also the authority of the right hon. the Home Secretary for stating, that in 1815 the Corn Laws were intended to compensate the landed interest for the loss anticipated to their property from the contemporaneous alteration of the currency then introduced. This important question, therefore, could not be fairly excluded from the inquiry proposed by the hon. Member for Sheffield, which he (Mr. Newdegate) would have supported, had there been information provided upon which the Committee could proceed to a free and impartial inquiry. Such, however, was not the case; and he (Mr. Newdegate) had that Session moved for Returns to remedy the defect, until the obtaining of which he must oppose the constitution of a Committee of Inquiry. He did expect, as the hon. Member had so long turned his attention to the subject, that he would have brought forward some analysis of the increase of the various kinds of property in the country, on which he would have based his propositions for inquiry. For himself, he thought he could not better test the subject than by taking the Returns which had been moved for by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton with respect to real property, together with the Poor Rate Returns. He thought these Returns threw much light on the question, but they failed in one thing. All factories, warehouses, wharfs, and buildings of every description were clubbed together in one mass as houses. Now it was evident, that buildings and premises adapted and used for the purposes of trade or commerce ought not to be assessed in the same ratio as houses used merely for residence, since from their site and application, they had an extraneous value. The basis of all assessment was the rent, for which the property to be assessed could be fairly let by open competition, and that was the system under which railways were assessed, and he maintained that was a just one. They were structures for the conveyance of goods and passengers; worth what they would let for to be used for conveyance, and ought to be assessed upon that value. The defect in the hon. Member for Wolverhampton's Returns was, that they did not afford the means of judging whether this system
* Hansard's Debates (Third Series), Vol. lxi. p. 441.

1417
was applied justly to the various kinds of house property—if he might so term it. But with this imperfection, he would take a glance at the real state of the question with regard to the increase of the value of land as compared with other descriptions of property. From these Returns it appeared that the value of real property in 1843 was 95,284,497 l. while in 1814 it was 60,138,380 l., being an increase of 35,146,167 l. In 1843, the rent of land in England, Wales, and Scotland was 45,753,615 l.; in 1814, it was 39,405,705 l., being an increase of 6,347,810 l. But in this increase was included 1,539,670 l. of tithe which had been commuted into rent charge. The hon. Member for Stockport had asked, on whom did the burden of the tithe fall? He would answer, that where the tithe was commuted, it fell upon the landlord; but where it was not commuted it fell upon the tenant. He did not mean to say that allowance was not made for it in the rent; but wherever it fell it must be considered as a burden upon the land. He would now come to the rent of houses for the same period. In 1843, the rent of houses was 38,475,738 l.; in 1814, it was 16,259,399 l., being an increase of 22,216,339 l., to be set against the increase in the value of land of 4,813,945 l., which was the real increase in the value of land after they deducted the commuted tithes. With these facts before them, he would ask whether the Legislature of the country could have shown any peculiar favour to land? The increase on other kinds of property, such as iron-works, canals, &c., was also at a per centage infinitely greater than the increase in the value of land; and was in some of them equivalent to the enormous increase that had taken place in the value of house property: the details of these he had in his hand, but with which at that late hour he would not trouble the House. How stood the question with reference to the assessment for the poor rates, and for the property tax, which was upon the full value of the property? The real property subject to the Property Tax in England and Wales, in 1843, was 85,802,735 l.; assessed to the poor rates in 1841, 62,540,030 l.; so that there was property exempt from poor rates to the value of 23,262,705 l. For the same periods the land assessed to the Property Tax amounted to 40,167,088 l.; to the poor rate, 32,655,137 l., leaving exempt from poor rate, 7,511,951 l. At the same time, the houses were assessed to the Property Tax at 35,556,399 l., and to the
1418
poor rates at 23,286,401 l., leaving exempt from poor rates, 12,169,998 l. The result of this was, that while land was assessed at four-fifths of its value, house and all other kinds of property was only assessed at two-thirds; and when they considered that this assessment formed the basis of all local taxation, they could not deny that local burthens must press more heavily upon the land than upon any other description of property, to say nothing of those which pressed upon the land exclusively. The information regarding local taxation was so imperfect, that an estimate of its amount could scarcely be formed; but he would not shrink from the inquiry. So soon as proper information could be obtained, for he found that everything that was left vague was, through some inadvertence, perhaps, but certainly through the misrepresentations of hon. Gentleman opposite, placed to the disadvantage of the land. His estimate of the peculiar burdens upon the land was, that they amounted to 12,000,000 l. sterling at least. They had high authority for saying that they amounted to 18,000,000 l. at the close of the war, and he believed that the land had benefited by the reduction of taxation, not in the same proportion, but in the same manner as other descriptions of property. Still there remain heavy burdens peculiar to land, among which he might mention the tithe, the county rate, and the land tax. The tithe he estimated at more than, 3,000,000 l.; the land tax, deducting that proportion paid in towns, at 1,000,000 l.; and the county rate, setting that proportion paid in towns over against the borough rates paid by farmers where their farms were included in the borough rate, at 800,000 l. The excess of the poor rates paid by land over every other description of property he could not ascertain; but he believed it was more than 1,000,000 l. The average of the malt tax for the last three years was between 4,000,000 l. and 5,000,000 l., making a total, with some other items, of upwards of 12,000,000 l. sterling. He might observe also that a new burden was gradually growing up, and that it was becoming more intense in its application to the land. The debts on the turnpike trusts of this country amounted to 8,000,000 l. sterling, and there was accumulated interest on the trusts of more than 1,000,000 l., making 9,000,000 l. in all; and, as the tolls now ceased to meet the exigencies of repairs and the payment of interest owing to the absorption of traffic by the railways, the different parishes

1419
would be called upon to contribute at a greater expense than before to their maintenance. He had shown a rough estimate of the burdens upon the land; he had shown that for the last thirty years the application of capital to the land had scarcely at all increased its value; although in that total value was included the additional rent of a large quantity of land, which had been brought into cultivation under Inclosure Acts during that period. Let them now consider what were the benefits which application of capital had produced to the community. In 1841, the quantity of corn consumed in this country was estimated at 61,460,879 quarters by Mr. M'Culloch. In 1814, it was 43,580,000. There was therefore an increase of production in thirty years of 18,000,000 of quarters—in the population of the country an increase for the same period of 10,000,000, (nearly 11,000,000,) and their production had been greater in proportion to the increase for the population that demanded it. How then could hon. Gentlemen accuse them of neglecting their estates? How could they say that agriculture was at a standstill in the country, whilst the average price at present was not two-thirds of that at the former period;—whilst the product of the land, by care, by science, and by the application of vast capital, had thus increased? Protection was said to be the bane of agriculture, because it produced uncertainty. That uncertainty was a great evil, and was caused by those who kept up a continual and bitter agitation on the subject of the Corn Laws. He knew no means of producing steadiness of price better than the system which they now pursued; for under it the price of wheat in this country had been steadier than in any other country in Europe, except Sweden. He should add that in the last Returns he had given, the importations in both cases were in very nearly a similar ratio to the total amounts; so, if deducted, they did not affect the general result. He was sorry to have obtruded upon the House so long; but when he was told that the landowners were beaten — when they were told by those in power that they only waited a fit opportunity to go further in the course which they had adopted, and which might be a just one if it were applied to all trades, professions, and systems; but so long as restriction was characteristic of our monetary system, so long did he think it was just to give protection to agriculture. Hon. Gentlemen, Members for agricultural counties, who were willing to leave things
1420
as they were, might submit to these continual taunts which were thrown out against them. For himself, he felt that he had no part with them. If he and his friends did wrong, let their constituencies declare it — if right, he trusted they would support those who supported them. The hon. Member for Sheffield appeared to think that they had no other argument than the peculiar burdens of agriculture; but they who had been taught in a different school knew that there were other principles in relation to this subject that were not only weighty in themselves, but were just and applicable, and of continual operation. They thought it was better that the country should be independent of foreign supply, rather than see the food of the people made the subject of speculation and of commercial exchange. And here he could bear testimony to the statement of the hon. Member for Stockport, that with him and those with whom he acted, the question was not a matter of price, but was a matter of exchange. They wished a new medium of exchange between themselves and their customers, to take corn as the medium of the barter; they found their American customers and others not able readily to pay them in bullion, so they had intimated that they would take corn in exchange. This was the whole root of the matter. He (Mr. Newdegate) well knew this was the real measure of their philanthropy, that for the sake of their own trade they would subject the food of the people to all the vicissitudes of commercial speculation. Without any wish to avoid or prevent honest inquiry in the present deficiency of adequate statistical information, he felt it his duty to oppose the proposition of the hon. Member.
Mr. V. Smithheard with regret that it was the intention of Ministers to oppose the present Motion; he must say, he thought a more unwise proceeding on their part could not be imagined. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War said, he could not see the object of this Motion, as all the information that could be gained by the Committee, was already before the House. His hon. Friend had stated the object he had in view distinctly. Repeated assertions of the most contradictory tendency were made from both sides of the House: it was the object of this Motion to put an end to these, and to place correct information on the subject to which it related before the House. The right hon. Gen-

1421
tleman's speech, in fact, went to show that no confidence could be placed in any Parliamentary Committee whatever. Looking to the uncertainty in which this subject was enveloped—seeing that it was difficult to discover even from the speeches made by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, whether they thought there were any peculiar burdens on land or not—he could not conceive any inquiry from which more useful or important results might be expected. If he wanted a convincing reason for a Committee, he had only to look to the speeches of the hon. Gentlemen who had just sat down: they gave the House one set of figures, while in the Eleventh Report of the Poor Law Commissioners he found that the calculations were entirely different. He would recommend his hon. Friend to embrace in the Motion an inquiry into the local taxation of the country; for that object alone it would be well worth while to go into Committee. In the Report of the Poor Law Commissioners, the produce of the public taxes, exclusive of Excise and Customs, was stated at 15,000,000 l., while the amount of the local taxation was given at 10,000,000 l.—not less than two-thirds of the former. He thought it might fairly be admitted that many of the local taxes pressed with greater severity on the land than on any other interest; those of the poor rates and county rates especially. It was impossible to imagine a state of greater confusion than that in which the local taxation of the country was now plunged, as explained in the Report to which he had referred; it stated that there were not less than twenty-two different rates of local taxation. Yet, although this Report had been before the House since 1843, no legislative measure had yet been taken on the subject. The right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) said he had enough to do without taking that subject in hand; he (Mr. V. Smith) admitted it, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman did not suppose that he spoke in censure; but he addressed this argument especially to the landed Gentlemen themselves. Instead of putting their fingers into the public purse, he would recommend them to consider what improvements might be made in the distribution of the local taxes. Hon. Gentlemen connected with the agricultural interest should come before a Committee and state their case. If they would adopt
1422
the course of proceeding which he recommended, they would no longer need to cling to the skirts of a Minister whom they accused of betraying them, though he confessed he thought the accusation overcharged; for they needed the right hon. Baronet, and wanted to make use of him, while he wanted to make use of them. Instead of bringing forward mock Motions and sham debates, let them come before a Committee and face their opponents. They had made Motions respecting auction duties and drawbacks on malt, which had resulted only in the drawback of the Motions. Let them advance at once with a fair and open front, and meet his hon. Friend in such a Committee as he proposed. Instead of living at the expense of the country, let them make good their case in that House. They might then live in defiance of those before whom they were now obliged to tremble, and to whom they were now forced to crouch.
Sir J. Tyrrellsaid, every argument addressed to the House by the hon. Member for Sheffield was to be found in print; but he could not see how the right hon. Secretary at War could reconcile his observations with those of the Home Secretary. The hon. Member for Stockport had alluded to an argument of his on the subject of rating stock in trade; but he had sat four hours with the Representatives of twenty-three counties, and they had all stated that they were betrayed by Her Majesty's Government. The story went of the right hon. Secretary at War, that when he went to see his yeomanry a week or two since, he was not well received by any except his own troops, who were called "the winners." But, to revert to the question of rating stock in trade; he would call the attention of the hon. Member for Stockport to the great inconvenience that would arise from quarterly examination of stock. He denied the proposition that the agriculturists were benefited by the reductions that had taken place in the duty on rapeseed, wool, and other articles; and argued that it afforded no ground, therefore, for a reduction of the duty on wheat. The case of the reduction on wool might be a very good pistol for the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government to present at the head of the Duke of Richmond; but it was not one which went on all fours. What he asked for was, that the dish should be held even as he was not of those who

1423
wished for free trade in manufactures rather than he did in corn. Last year he had great confidence in the consistency of Her Majesty's Government, and would have gone into the Committee if they chose it; but things had altered since, and he could not now agree to the Motion. If the hon. Member for Manchester were in his place, he would admit that as to the duty upon cotton, he had expressed his assent to the repeal of that duty. He had no objection to give them the turn of a scale in the foreign market. But then he claimed a fair protection for himself; he was not ashamed to say that he thought if wheat was 50 s. a quarter, greater social benefits would follow. There would be a greater employment of labour than if it were 40 s. a quarter under the head of barter, when they had no security that Foreign Governments would act upon the same principle. He felt the greatest confidence that if any such inquiry should now be adopted, the landed interest would be able to support all its statements; but the present Motion, like that of the noble Lord the Member for London, had no practical object, and ought, therefore, to be rejected; and when it was said, as an argument for it, that whilst the present uncertainty existed they could only half cultivate the land, he must tell them that it was they who prevented the fair application of capital to the land by continuing this agitation on the subject.
Dr. Bowringsaid it was an undoubted fact, that the land in England was taxed in a far smaller proportion to the State than it was in most of the other countries in Europe. It must be obvious, however, that the present tendency of legislation was to free commerce from its trammels; and agriculture must also share in the benefits of that release. England had long been pursuing a most vicious line of policy. The legislative powers had been confided to the landowners, and it was now high time to release commerce and agriculture from the shackles imposed on them by the landed classes. At all events, inquiry was imperative on the House; and he, therefore, should vote for the appointment of a Select Committee.
The House divided:—Ayes 109; Noes 182: Majority 73.

List of the AYES.

Aldam, W.

Bannerman, A.

Baine, W.

Barclay, D.

1424

Baring, rt. hn. F. T.

Leveson, Lord

Barnard, E. G.

Mangles, R. D.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Manners, Lord J.

Bernal, R.

Marjoribanks, S.

Blewitt, R. J.

Marshall, W.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Martin, J.

Bowring, Dr.

Mitcalfe, H.

Bright, J.

Mitchell, T. A.

Brocklehurst, J.

Morris, D.

Brotherton, J.

Morison, Gen.

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Napier, Sir C.

Cavendish, hn. G. H.

Newport, Visct.

Chapman, B.

O'Connell, M. J.

Childers, J. W.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Christie, W. D.

Ord, W.

Clay, Sir W.

Palmerston, Visct.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Parker, J.

Collett, T.

Pattison, J.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Pechell, Capt.

Craig, W. G.

Philips, G. R.

Crawford, W. S.

Philips, M.

Curteis, H. B.

Plumridge, Capt.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Pulsford, R.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Rawdon, Col.

Dennistoun, J.

Redington, T. N.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. T.

Repton, G. W. J.

Duncan, Visct.

Ricardo, J. L.

Duncan, G.

Ross, D. R.

Duncannon, Visct.

Rumbold, C. E.

Dundas, Adm.

Sheridan, R. B.

Dundas, F.

Smith, rt. hn. R. V.

Dundas, D.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Ellis, W.

Stanton, W. H.

Elphinstone, H.

Stuart, Lord J.

Escott, B.

Strickland, Sir G.

Ewart, W.

Strutt, E.

Fitzwilliam, hon. G. W.

Tancred, H. W.

Forster, M.

Traill, G.

Fox, C. R.

Trelawny, J. S.

Gibson, T. M.

Tufnell, H.

Gill, T.

Villiers, hon. C.

Granger, T. C.

Vivian, J. H.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Walker, R.

Hawes, B.

Warburton, H.

Heathcoat, J.

Watson, W. H.

Hill, Lord M.

Wawn, J. T.

Hindley, C.

Williams, W.

Howard, hn. C. W. G.

Wilshere, W.

Howick, Visct.

Wood, C.

Hume, J.

Worsley, Lord

Hutt, W.

Wrightson, W. B.

Langston, J. H.

TELLERS.

Layard, Capt.

Ward, H. G.

Lemon, Sir C.

Cobden, R.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Bankes, G.

Acland, T. D.

Baring, T.

Acton, Col.

Barrington, Visct.

Allix, J. P.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Antrobus, E.

Beckett, W.

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Bell, M.

Arkwright, G.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Astell, W.

Blackburne, J. I.

Austen, Col.

Blackstone, W. S.

Bailey, J.

Blakemore, R.

Baillie, H. J.

Boldero, H. G.

1425

Borthwick, P.

Drummond, H. H.

Botfield, B.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Bowles, Adm.

Du Pre, C. G.

Boyd, J.

Eaton, R. J.

Bramston, T. W.

Emlyn, Visct.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Farnham, E. B.

Bruce, Lord E.

Fellowes, E.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Filmer, Sir E.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Fitzmaurice, hon. W.

Buck, L. W.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Buckley, E.

Flower, Sir J.

Bullet, Sir T. Y.

Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.

Bunbury, T.

Gardner, J. D.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Burroughes, H. N.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Campbell, J. H.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Cardwell, E.

Gore, M.

Carew, W. H. P.

Goring, C.

Cholmondeley, hn. H.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Christopher, R. A.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Chute, W. L. W.

Granby, Marquess of

Clayton, R. R.

Greenall, P.

Clerk, rt. hn. Sir G.

Greene, T.

Clifton, J. T.

Grimsditch, T.

Clive, hon. R. A.

Grimston, Visct.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.

Grogan, E.

Cole, hon. H. A.

Halford, Sir H.

Colvile, C. R.

Hamilton, J. H.

Compton, H. C.

Hamilton, W. J.

Copeland, Ald.

Harcourt, G. G.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Courtenay, Lord

Hayes, Sir E.

Cripps, W.

Heathcote, J.

Darby, G.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Davies, D. A. S.

Henley, J. W.

Dawnay, hon. W. H.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Deedes, W.

Herbert, rt. hn. S.

Denison, E. B.

Holmes, hn. W. A'C.

Dickinson, F. H.

Hope, hon. C.

Disraeli, B.

Hope, A.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Hope, G. W.

Douglas, J. D. S.

Hotham, Lord

ERRATA.

Folio 48, line 20, for "only 500 l. a year in Wales," read "only 350 l. a year in Wales."

Folio 198, line 1, for "that the words proposed stand part of the Question," read "that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

1426

Hussey, T.

Plumptre, J. P.

James, Sir W. C.

Pusey, P.

Jermyn, Earl

Rashleigh, W.

Johnstone, H.

Round, C. G.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Russell, J. D. W.

Jones, Capt.

Ryder, hon. G. D.

Lefroy, A.

Sanderson, R.

Legh, G. C.

Sandon, Visct.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Scott, hon. F.

Lincoln, Earl of

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Lockhart, W.

Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Smythe, Sir H.

Mackenzie, T.

Somerset, Lord G.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

McGeachy, F. A.

Spry, Sir S. T.

McNeill, D.

Stanley, E.

Mahon, Visct.

Stewart, J.

Mainwaring, T.

Stuart, H.

March, Earl of

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Martin, C. W.

Tennent, J. E.

Martin, T. B.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Thompson, Ald.

Meynell, Capt.

Thornhill, G.,

Miles, P. W. S.

Tollemache, J.

Miles, W.

Tower, C.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Mundy, E. M.

Trollope, Sir J.

Neeld, J.

Trotter, J.

Neeld, J.

Turnor, C.

Newdegate, C. N.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Nicholl, rt. hn. J.

Verner, Col.

Norreys, Lord

Vernon, G. H.

O'Brien, A. S.

Vivian, J. E.

Pakington, J. S.

Waddington, H. S.

Palmer, R.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Palmer, G.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Patten, J. W.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

TELLERS.

Peel, J.

Young, J.

Pennant, hon. Col.

Lennox, Lord A.

House adjourned.

ERRATA.
Folio 48, line 20, for "only 500 l. a year in Wales," read "only 350 l. a year in Wales."
Folio 198, line 1, for "that the words proposed stand part of the Question," read "that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
INDEX

MINUTES.
Sat First.—The Earl of Romney, after the Death of his Father.
BILLS. Public.—Reported.—Small Debts.
3a. and passed:—Indemnity; Railway Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) (No. 2).
Private.—1a. Berks and Hants Railway; Midland Railways (Syston to Peterborough); Glasgow Markets; Lutwidge's or Fletcher's) Estate; Sir Robert Keith Dick's Estate.
2a. Cromer (Norfolk) Protection from the Sea; Blackburn Waterworks; Castle Hill (Wexford Docks); Watermen's Company Endowment; Blackburn, Burnley, Accrington, and Colne Extension Railway.
Reported.—Nottingham Inclosure; Leeds and Bradford Railway Extension (Shipley to Colne); Chester and Holyhead Railway; Leeds, Dewsbury, and Manchester Railway; Huddersfield and Sheffield Junction Railway; Huddersfield and Manchester Railway and Canal.
3a. and passed:—Paisley Gas.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Bishops of Llandaff, Cashel, Chester, and Winchester, by Earls of Radnor, Clancarty, Fitzhardinge, Fortescue, Yarborough, and Roden, by the Marquesses of Breadalbane, and Downshire, and by Lords Bexley, Farnham, Kenyon, and Brougham, from Inhabitants of Ballygilbert, and a great number of other places, against the Increase of Grant to Maynooth College.—From Kilmore, and 6 other places, for the Encouragement of Schools in connexion with Church Education Society (Ireland).—By Earl of Fortescue, and Lord Campbell, from Exeter, and Ilminster, in favour of the Increase of Grant to Maynooth College.—From Liverpool, and Chipping Warden, for the Appointment of a Committee of Inquiry relating to Maynooth College.—From Dingwall, for Improving the Condition of Schoolmasters (Scotland).—From Tillicoultry, against the running of Railway Trains on the Sabbath.

MAYNOOTH COLLEGE (IRELAND) BILL—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
Order of the Day for resuming the Adjourned Debate, read. Debate accordingly.
The Earl of Hardwickesaid, that in addressing the House on the question then under discussion, he would abstain from making any remark on the existing agitation in Ireland, except so far as regarded the evil tendency which that unhappy agitation on political subjects had to render it difficult to carry into effect the good intentions of the Government of ameliorating the condition of Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland, from the circumstance that the agitation itself rendered a great number of the people of this country disinclined to adopt measures of kindness and amelioration in respect of Ireland. The present course which the Government was pursuing, would have been more easy if the agitators in that country had been disposed to abstain from any active denunciations of the views of the Government. In the course of the discussion of last night, he had been struck with the very narrow limits to which the debate appeared to have been confined, having extended itself no further—so to speak—

1299
than the walls of the College of Maynooth; the latter part of the discussion in particular having reference only to the religious feelings and opinions of its inmates. He considered the measure now under the consideration of the House as one of those great steps which, during the last half century, they had gradually been adopting for the amelioration of the Roman Catholics of Ireland. Step by step had that movement gone steadily forward, in spite of every difficulty and opposition, until they had at last very nearly arrived at the point which had not only brought the Catholics of Ireland, but the religion which they professed, to an entire equality with the Protestants and the Protestantism of the Empire. In pursuance of this policy, the present measure had been proposed. Let their Lordships look to what was the state of the College of Maynooth. They had evidence to show that the condition of that institution was such as to render it insufficient for the purposes which it was intended to accomplish. They had had the history of its rise and progress from the noble Duke who last night opened the debate. They had seen how it had become, by the lapse of time, and the increase of population, insufficient to carry out the intentions of its founders, and how the necessity of doing something for it had arrived. Some remedy must, therefore, he adopted, and three courses were open for the Government to pursue: they might leave the institution as it was; they might abolish it entirely; or they might adopt that course which they had actually chosen. The two former alternatives, it was quite impossible that under present circumstances they could have adopted. No course was, therefore, practically left, but that which would carry out the intentions of the original founders—the Protestant Parliament of Ireland, and place the College in a good and efficient state for all the purposes for which it was originally established. So far no new principle was introduced by the Bill; and in this respect, therefore, it could not have raised feelings of alarm in the minds of the people of this country. But the deep feeling and great excitement which it had occasioned must have been the effect of the new principle which the Bill did undoubtedly introduce into Ireland, namely, the endowment and incorporation of the Irish Roman Catholic Church. The right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) who had last night addressed the House, objected to the institution of Maynooth upon the ground that
1300
the students were principally taken from the very lowest classes of society. Of this assertion, however, no proof was advanced, and he was by no means certain that it was quite correct. Indeed, they had evidence to prove that, in order to gain admission to the lowest class of Maynooth, applicants were required to undergo the test of an examination in various branches of the classics—the acquisition of which would involve the necessity of a somewhat expensive previous education. Passing from this point, however, to the more important part of the Bill, which introduced a new principle into the policy we had so long pursued towards the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, it was well known and understood, particularly in this country, where the endowment of our own Church had brought about such benefits, that endowments were essentially important to the advancement of religion and the well-being of society at large. What was the state of that religion which they were about to endow? Could they carry out the principle of eradicating and abolishing it altogether? Had they not up to the present time not only tolerated but given it power and wealth, and very recently taken a much greater step than that for the endowment of the College of Maynooth, namely, the sanctioning last year the endowment of private property in connexion with the Roman Catholic Church? The principle of joint endowment was adopted in the Mauritius, Newfoundland, Malta, Canada, Trinidad, St. Lucia, and Gibraltar; but it was one which Was perfectly novel in Ireland, and he must say that he was perfectly ready and willing to see that principle, and others akin to it, carried out to their fullest extent, and that he entertained no apprehension of the safety of the Protestant Church being endangered by the experiment. In all the evidence that had been taken on the subject, no instance had been shown in which the Roman Catholic Church had evinced any desire to take to itself any portion of that which belonged to the Established Church, or any unwillingness to have sufficient power exercised over it by the State. He contended for the payment of the Catholic clergy by the State; and he conceived that such a course would ensure two great and desirable objects—the elevation of the character of the priest, and the removal of a burden from the shoulders of the peasant—objects, the accomplishment of which would do more for the social condition of Ireland, and more tend to promote its

1301
peace and prosperity, than would that of almost any others. He believed that the endowment of what were called "Antagonist" Churches, so far from injuring, would tend much to the support of the Protestant Church of Ireland. The endowment of the Church of 6,000,000 of the Irish people could not but have a beneficial effect upon the Roman Catholic clergy, who would thus be enabled to perform their sacred duties free from those influences which now affected them; and would tend to relieve a great mass of suffering. As to the opinion that the property of the Irish Church Establishment was coveted by the Irish Catholics, they had every ground for believing that that opinion was fallacious. Dr. Doyle had distinctly declared that there was no desire on the part of the Roman Catholics of Ireland to obtain the temporal possessions of the Protestant Established Church; and Mr. O'Connell, although he had spoken in favour of attaching the Catholic clergy to the State by a golden link, had denounced the idea that there was any intention or wish on their part to deprive the Protestant Church of its revenues. He knew that a different opinion as to the endowment of the clergy now prevailed; but although it might be said that the Roman Catholics of Ireland would not accept of any State endowment for their clergy, he thought the acceptance of the endowment offered to them by the present measure, was a proof sufficient that the well-thinking classes of that community would be disposed to look with gratitude to any fair offer of that description that might be made to them. The source from which that endowment should be paid was another question. There might be circumstances connected with the Protestant Church of Ireland, which might make it matter for grave consideration whether it would not in fact strengthen that Church to abstract a portion of its revenues, not to the uses of the State, but to the uses of religion. Was it true that there were 151 parishes in Ireland in which there was not a single Protestant? He did not know for a fact that it was so—but he asked the question—was it so? If that were really the case, it was indeed a monstrous state of things. Was it true that there was a revenue of 58,000 l. a year paid to the Protestant Church in 151 parishes in Ireland, in which there was not a single Protestant? He said again that he did not know whether this was the case or not, but he asked the question—was it so? And if so, then he
1302
would repeat it was indeed a monstrous state of things, and it was in no degree matter of astonishment that the minds of men, in a highly educated state, beholding such a picture, should feel that the time was come when, for the sake of religion—for he sake of public security—for the sake of placing the Protestant Church in a high and strong position—that that state of things, if it did exist, should exist no longer. These were his own opinions, formed upon his own judgment, and entirely unconnected with any one with whom he had had communication on this subject. They were opinions that had arisen in his mind, from an anxious but calm consideration of the present state and condition of Ireland, and of the aspect which it bore to him, viewing it, as he did, from a distance. They were opinions that had arisen in his mind from seeing the great advancement which Ireland was daily making, in spite of all that was opposed to it, and from an entire conviction that no settlement of affairs in that country would be perfect until all those points were placed upon such a footing as would enable, not the Irish people only, but the people of England, to look with satisfaction upon the state of things in Ireland. The proposition of two antagonist Churches existing together in perfect amity, and with entire security to the Protestant Church, was not new. They had the spectacle of two such Churches existing together in perfect amity and contentment in more than one country, and they saw them working together side by side in their respective missions, and both conducing to the advancement and interests of true religion. In Austria, where the Established Church was Roman Catholic, they found Protestants admitted to perfect equality, and to all employments, civil as well as military. In Bavaria, there were three religions existing in amity together—the Roman Catholic, the Calvinist, and the Lutheran, all being on terms of perfect equality, and all having the same rights. In France, the same burying grounds were common to both religions; and in the kingdoms of Saxony, Holland, and Hanover, they found Roman Catholic and Protestant existing together on terms of equality and amity, not only without injury to the religion of either, but to the advantage of both. And it was a monstrous state of things to exhibit a spectacle unlike anything that was to be found elsewhere in the whole world. In looking at the present state of Ireland, it was impossible to cast out of considera-

1303
tion the rapid growth of the power of the Irish Roman Catholics. Parliament had placed them upon an equality with their Protestant fellow subjects; they had given them the power, and they had obtained wealth and influence; they had placed them in a position in the social scale equal to their own; and yet they refused the elementary support to that Church which, under a proper state of things, might be expected to exercise a useful and powerful influence in the good government of that portion of the community. In what he was now saying, he wished not to be understood as intending to give any sanction to the Roman Catholic religion. He was, he hoped, as sincere a Protestant as any noble Lord in the House. But in his mind, if he were to enter into an inquiry, as proposed, as to the state of the Roman Catholic religion as taught at Maynooth, into the books read by the students, and the nature of the spiritual instruction given, it would be a proof that he desired to interfere with the spiritual affairs of that establishment; and though he might find nothing in that spiritual instruction which was not customary to the Roman Catholic Church, which (he hoped he might say without offence) he abhorred, still he should find nothing that would not be in his mind, as a Protestant, pernicious in itself, and therefore it was that he would not by inquiry be supposed to give any personal authority or approval of what was there taught. At the same time he did not see that it was at all inconsistent with his view that he should desire to raise the standard of education there given to those who were to be the spiritual teachers of the Irish people. A noble Friend of his, not now in his place, had on the previous evening attempted to connect the Irish priests educated at Maynooth with the crimes and outrages which had unfortunately prevailed to so great an extent in Ireland. Now, he had looked into the evidence taken before the House of Lords in 1839, and he found that Colonel Kennedy traced the existence of crime in Ireland to religious differences only so far as religious differences affected the social state of that country; and Major Warburton, after speaking of the great influence the Irish priests had over their flocks, went on to say, that they had used that influence to maintain the peace of the country, and had on several occasions aided the constabulary force when it was called upon to act. Another witness, Mr. J. H. Hamilton, had stated that the priests were opposed to ribbonism, and mentioned instan-
1304
ces in which they had actually given information against men who were implicated in the ribbon conspiracy, and had denounced that conspiracy from the altar. The same witness also added that he had never known an instance of a priest sanctioning the ribbon combination. The result of the evidence taken before their Lordships' Committee was far from showing that the murders and crimes committed in Ireland had their source (as his noble Friend had inferred), or were supported in any way by the Catholic priest. In fact, the whole tenor of that evidence led to a directly opposite conclusion; for it was proved that they gave, to the best of their power, their assistance to the Government in preserving the peace. He hailed the step now taken as one of great and vital importance, and he hoped he should see those whom he now addressed live to carry out those measures which he believed to be necessary to a final and satisfactory settlement of those questions which now agitated Ireland, the result of which settlement, he was convinced, would be to establish the security of this great Empire.
The Earl of Carnarvonsaid: My noble Friend (Earl Hardwicke) has brought before your Lordships the state of our Colonial endowments, with reference to the support of the Roman Catholic priesthood; that system of Colonial arrangement which maintains in harmony those internal relations upon which the internal peace of States so much depends. But my right rev. Friend (the Bishop of London) who has addressed your Lordships with great ability in opposition to this measure, has argued that our Colonial arrangements are justified by considerations wholly inapplicable to the Bill before us. He tells us, my Lords, that in many of those Colonial possessions we are bound by solemn treaties, by treaties of capitulation, to support the Roman Catholic priesthood. It may be so, my Lords; but I tell this House that interests, however great, are not to be weighed in the balance with national morality; if we are really bound by solemn engagements to the maintenance of a sinful system, there is but one course which a great and moral country should pursue. Let us not violate our treaties, but let us abandon our interest in those possessions; let us give up Canada, let us give up Malta, let us give up the Mauritius, let us make any sacrifice of national advantage, but be not, my Lords, any longer parties to the continued burden of great national guilt. Is my right rev. Friend prepared to advocate this

1305
policy, is he prepared to push his principles to this their only consistent end? Do not, I implore you, adopt one policy towards possessions which from political circumstances you must treat with consideration, and another, towards a country more at your mercy and control, and which should be bound by still nearer and dearer ties to every British heart. Do not, my Lords, deny to Ireland what you dared not refuse to Canada. Let it not be said that a sense of interest could warp the honest inflexibility of your principle of opposition to this measure—that honesty which, in my humble opinion, is its only real value. But the course which my noble Friends require your Lordships to pursue, would involve you in the most glaring inconsistency, not only with your Colonial policy, but with the arrangements which you have introduced into Ireland itself. You have sanctioned—nay, you have compelled the appointment of Roman Catholic chaplains in Irish gaols and workhouses; you have conferred upon them ample salaries, and yet you now maintain that the priests inculcate great and deadly error. Why, then, do my noble Friends recoil from the effect of their own principles? Why do they refrain a single hour from pressing upon the Legislature a repeal of these unholy arrangements? But they do not, and they will not adopt this course, and I will tell them why. Because, whatever may be their theoretical opinion, they have not practically the courage, or rather the harshness to say to the poor misguided being, perhaps under sentence of death, "You shall have no religious instruction in this most awful period of your life, when your last sands are running out, and you are about to appear before your offended God; you shall have no religious consolation, unless you will accept it in that new and unaccustomed form in which I will give it you." My noble Friends, therefore, cannot act up to the principles they profess; they may be zealous, but they cannot be consistent champions of the cause they maintain. A right rev. Prelate, who addressed this House in a very different tone and temper from that which characterized the speech of my other right rev. Friend, dwelt in terms, I think, of most unbecoming harshness on the falsehood of the Roman Catholic religion. But upon what authority does that right rev. Prelate so dogmatically lay down what is religious truth, and what is vital religious error? Shall the line of demarcation drawn by the right rev. Prelate, be the only line accepted? It rarely
1306
falls to the lot of any man to inculcate truth pure and unmixed with error. I am sure it does not fall to the lot of that right rev. Prelate. I believe that the Church of England differs in its general spirit more widely from the Church of Scotland than from that of Rome; and yet we endow the Church of Scotland without a hesitating scruple, while with a strange inconsistency we contend against any additional relief being extended to the impoverished ministers of the Roman Catholic faith. Many men, my Lords, in the bosom of the Church of England, able and devoted men, are of opinion that the deep Calvinism of the Presbyterian Church is more prejudicial in its tendencies on human conduct, and more fraught with perilous misconception, than any tenet of the Church of Rome. Does the right rev. Prelate, who pronounces so hardily on what is religious truth and what religious falsehood, remember that in this very city in which we are now debating, the Tractarian and the man of the Evangelical school, hold on certain points, and on points of no slight importance, opinions diametrically opposed to each other? Absolute truth, my Lords, cannot dwell with both parties; truth unmixed with error probably dwells with none. Yet shall we upon this account entirely proscribe that mode of religious instruction which does not flow in the one particular channel to which we may have particularly pinned our faith? A noble Friend who spoke early in the debate, was of opinion that Roman Catholic doctrines were fraught with vital mischief in a spiritual point of view; and this I know is the predominant motive of his honest opposition. If I held this doctrine, I would, however, be more consistent than my noble Friend. I would not only oppose this Bill, but I would weary the Legislature with prayers for a total cessation of any grant. The sin, if sin there be, lies not in increasing the grant to 22,000 l., but in giving any grant at all. My noble Friend has told us that the Protestant spirit has been roused throughout the length and breadth of the land, by the promulgation of this Anti-Protestant principle. But, my Lords, this is no question of principle; it is a mere question of detail, a mere matter of amount of money. The Protestant thunders have slept over the impious principle of voting money for the support of the Roman Catholic priesthood at Maynooth, for the last fifty years. It were easy, my Lords, to rest my vote on a thousand reasons, based upon expediency, but I will not assign mo-

1307
tives. which only partially affect me. I vote in favour of this Bill, because I believe the Roman Catholic to be a true though not altogether a pure branch of the Christian faith; and because I believe that the good which it inculcates is out of all proportion to the error with which it is imbued. I believe, my Lords, that it contains the elements of saving truth; and having come to this conclusion, my course is clear before me—no doubt hangs heavy on my mind—I feel it my bounden duty to assist, as far my humble vote can go, in improving the character of that religious instruction which we cannot alter, and which, inferior in my humble opinion to that in which I have been born and bred, and in which I hope to die, still animates its votaries with high religious hope, imposes upon their passions restraints superior to those of the law, and will, I firmly believe, extend salvation — why should I scruple to use the word in a British House of Peers?—will extend salvation to the people who receive it with earnest and devoted hearts. If the noble Lord could establish—as he has vainly striven to do—that the question lies between the extension of the Roman Catholic faith and the increase of ours, between the Church of England and the Church of Rome, between what he might consider truth nearly unalloyed on one side, and truth clouded on the other, I could understand his feelings; but practically the question is between imperfect and inadequate Roman Catholic instruction on the one hand, and Roman Catholic instruction in a more perfect and sufficient shape on the other; between that which is good and that which is comparatively bad of the same quality and kind. But a noble Duke has argued that a Roman Catholic priest is more prejudicial to the community when highly educated, than when ignorant and unenlightened. With great respect for the noble Duke, this notion is absolutely abhorrent to my mind; for it proceeds upon the narrow and ungenerous, and, I think, utterly mistaken assumption, that a Roman Catholic priest can teach no good. I have lived in early life in countries where the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church exercised an almost unlimited ascendancy over the public mind; and even in those countries where it is supposed to exist in the most dangerous plenitude of its authority, I cannot think that it deserves the harsh expressions with which it has been assailed to-night, or that it is entirely without that blessing from above, which the Protestant Dissenters of this country—judging by their petitions—
1308
would exclusively arrogate to themselves. But serious charges have been brought in this debate against the priesthood of Maynooth. The noble Earl who moved the Amendment overflows with kindly feeling towards the Roman Catholic peasantry of his native country, but seems by his language to forget that the priest is also a fellow countryman and an Irishman, and in those capacities entitled to some portion of his sympathy. I do not believe in the deep-seated disaffection to the British Crown among the clergy of Maynooth, which has been so much dwelt upon by the noble Lord. The Roman Catholic priesthood have been true to this country in all great emergencies. When the Presbyterians fanned the flame of rebellion, the Irish priesthood, as a body, stood fast by the Crown of England. When Napoleon Bonaparte made splendid offers to that body, those offers they nobly rejected. When our Empire was shaken to its base by the mutiny of the Nore, the priests were mainly instrumental in restoring the deluded Roman Catholic sailors to their lost allegiance; and I have been informed by a noble Lord—once high in Mr. Pitt's confidence, and with whom some of the noble Lords whom I now see were well acquainted—that Mr. Pitt acknowledged to the last day of his life the important services performed upon that occasion by the Roman Catholic priests. Let it also be remembered, that during the late memorable struggle in Canada, the Colonial priesthood forsook their flocks when they abandoned British interests, and adhered with undeviating fidelity to the cause of the mother country and the Crown. But if, my Lords, the noble opponents of this Bill have argued correctly in maintaining that the priests in Ireland have become disaffected, heart and soul, to British connexion, to what shall we attribute this change in their feeling? Why, my Lords, to the policy which has kept them so long in a state of strange anomaly and undeserved inferiority; there they are influential, but poor in a land where great revenues once belonged to their Church, idolized by the people, but too often looked down upon by the great, as this debate has unhappily shown. The very indifference manifested for their well-being, and even respectability, in the desolate and poverty-stricken establishment of Maynooth, might well convert the most ardent loyalty into coolness and utter alienation. Be just to them, my Lords, and they will be true to you. But a noble Duke has brought an accusa-

1309
tion against the priesthood of a still graver character. The noble Earl has accused them of exciting political discontent, and keeping up political agitation; but the noble Duke has dwelt upon the injurious consequences arising from the immoral nature of the doctrines they propound. If we are severe, let us at least be just! I ask those noble Lords who are best acquainted with the internal condition of Ireland, whether private immorality has been the practical result of those doctrines? I do not feel by any means so sure that the calumniated priesthood of Ireland have failed in the greatest of their great requirements. I believe there is no country where reverence in religious matters is more widely diffused, where morals are more pure, or where among the population generally, the marriage vow is more hallowed than in Ireland. When the noble Duke attributed the agrarian outrages and general insubordination to the law which has so much afflicted that unhappy country to the direct influence—and if I understood him rightly to the positive connivance—of the priests, I was filled, indeed, with almost irrepressible astonishment. I have lived much in Roman Catholic countries, and I never heard such conduct attributed to the priesthood, even by the most determined enemies of their faith. The noble Duke has studied the history of Ireland to little purpose, if he can find no other and more satisfactory cause for that tendency to local and agrarian crime which has so long and so fatally characterized her population. Those evils are remote in their causes, but their effects remain, and cannot be eradicated in a day by the better principles and better governments of our time. Those outrages which the noble Duke imputes to the influence of the Roman Catholic priesthood originated, I grieve to say, in the guilty policy of our Protestant forefathers; and was the indirect result of that withering penal code which convicted the Governments that administered it of injustice—which deprived the law of all respect—which reared the subject in an habitual and almost hereditary hatred of the governing powers of the land, and perverted all the duties and poisoned all the social relations of life. The persecution of the Marian reign scarcely excites in my mind so much shame and sorrow as that persecution of a different but more systematic and cold-blooded character—that persecution I more inexcusable, because, carried on in a far more instructed age—that persecution enforced after the Revolution of 1688, by
1310
statesmen tolerant in England, and supposed to be attached to civil liberty but who rivetted on unhappy Ireland a code of laws which, in point of deliberate perversion of every sound and Christian feeling, is a wondrous proof of the extent to which party apprehensions and party passions can carry the minds of men not wholly indisposed to good. My Lords, it is time that a just and equal policy should blot out the bitter wrongs of centuries. I never thought that I should have heard again the old arguments touching the infallibility of Popes, and their power of deposing princes, renewed in this House; but the ghost has been again evoked. But do noble Lords forget that it was distinctly stated by the great Roman Catholic authorities, in their examination before the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the doctrines held at Maynooth, that papal infallibility applies only to what are termed dictates of essential morals, or to moral points of a general and immutable character: the papal power of deposing princes they utterly repudiated as inconsistent with their temporal allegiance to the Sovereign, and they supported this view of the case by the concurring opinion of all the late Italian canonists? Again, the doctrine which restricts salvation to members of the Roman Catholic Church was qualified, to a great extent, according to their statements, by exceptions and limitations which greatly modify that general proposition. But if the harshest view of the case is to be assumed from the letter of particular declarations, and not from their general spirit, might not charges of a very intolerant character be brought against the Church of England, the most tolerant Establishment in the world? I was reading only yesterday a homily in which positions are laid down, excluding from the pale of salvation every Roman Catholic as an idolater. Again, my Lords, the Athanasian creed, which is incorporated in our service—and which I must be understood as naming with respect—might be objected to as uncharitably involving the utter condemnation of every Arian, and indeed of every man entertaining opinions in the slightest degree at variance with those of the Established Church, touching the procession of persons and the equality of the Godhead. You allow our Church to modify the apparent harshness of particular positions by Christian explanations, and by the general tone and temper of our faith: why do you not mete out the same measure of justice to the Roman Catholics? Why will you not

1311
permit them to place their own construction on their bulls, and councils, and decrees? I do not, for a moment, maintain that their own construction would please your Lordships; still it would most materially vary from that construction which noble Lords, acquainted only with their faith from the dislike in which they hold it, are determined that those bulls and councils and decrees shall bear. You assume that the Roman Catholics entertain the most monstrous errors of opinion, and you call for an inquiry. The inquiry is granted, and your charges are disproved; but in a short time the accusations are renewed with all their former vehemence; and when you are reminded that the refutation was recent and complete, you turn round and say, "Some centuries ago, the Roman Catholics held, as a dogma, that papal authority was infallible in matters temporal and spiritual, and that the papal fiat could depose the princes of the earth. The Catholic religion never changes; and therefore, as such was your opinion formerly, such must your opinion still remain, however much you may deny it; such was formerly, such, therefore, is, and such shall be, your opinion to the end of time." My Lords, it is impossible to contend against such a shifting battery as this. It has been observed by a noble Lord, that even if the first grant to Maynooth was justified by the state of Ireland in 1795, the conversion of that grant into a permanent endowment is not required by the circumstances of the present day; but I contend, that if the policy upon which the original grant was based was justifiable in 1795, that policy is far more necessary, and, indeed, even requires extension, in the present day. Since the College of Maynooth was established, the Roman Catholic population has increased in Ireland from three to six millions; and in point of intelligence, independence, and vigour of thought and action, the advance has been still greater. Look at the state of the Irish Bar—look at the state of the Irish Bench. Look at the House of Commons, where some of its most gifted Members are of that persuasion. Look nearer home, my Lords, where the Roman Catholic nobles—no longer, thank God! excluded from their birthright in this House—participate, on equal terms and with equal activity, in the transaction of the general business of the country. Some years ago, you gave their Commons representation in the Legislature, and consequently, solid power; last year, you conferred upon their Prelates precedence and
1312
rank. Can you, then, suppose that when the whole of Roman Catholic Ireland is thus on the advance, it is a wise or even a practicable policy to keep the working Roman Catholic clergy of that country, in the midst of this great onward movement, degraded and depressed? Do what you will, those priests whom you so much depreciate are, and must remain, the spiritual guides of millions of your countrymen. The practical question for you, my Lords, to consider, is this—will you conciliate, or will you alienate, men who can wield such formidable influence for good or for evil? Will you have them fanatic, or well instructed—with you, or against you—attached, or hostile, to British connexion? The noble Earl has told us that this attempt to conciliate the priesthood will not succeed; and in support of this position, he has adverted to the recent language of a Roman Catholic dignitary with reference to the present measure. But I have yet to learn that because one man makes use of injudicious language, a whole nation will therefore be ungrateful. It has been observed, that this measure is calculated to endanger the Protestant Church and faith in Ireland. I confess, my Lords, that if our faith could be shaken by an act of charity, by the mere breath of toleration and love, it would be valueless in my eyes; because I should then be well convinced that it had no inherent strength—that it was not of God, but of man. But though our faith may rest on a rock, the Protestant Church of Ireland may stand on looser foundations. I do not mean to say this measure will directly advance the cause of Protestantism. I do not think it will; but this I say, that if, with the growing numbers, growing intelligence, and growing power of the Roman Catholic world in Ireland, we refuse them that religious instruction which is nearest and dearest to their hearts, we shall accumulate a mass of jealousy and hatred against that Protestant Church Establishment, which, strongly as we are bound to defend it, is still, I will not say the weakest, but the most anomalous, and consequently, in the unhappy temper of the present times, the most endangered part of our Irish polity. But it has been argued that this measure is likely to impede the work of Protestant Reformation in Ireland. I confess, my Lords, that I regard as visionary the hope of inducing any large portion of the Roman Catholic population of Ireland to renounce their ancient faith. If this object could ever be even partially effected, it

1313
could only be effected by conciliation and generations of kindly rule; it cannot, I am sure, be effected by harshly telling the people of Ireland, that we their masters consider it our bounden duty to resist every measure which will confer a better character on that only kind of spiritual instruction which they can conscientiously accept, and that we will stint them as far as we can in the very amount of that spiritual instruction to which the poor Irishman clings as his best support in his painful path through life, and which sheds peace—and, I believe, not a false peace—upon his bed of death. Shall we then, my Lords, adopt such an ungenerous policy in the stern, though visionary, hope of ultimately forcing a people into the adoption of a faith from which they dissent? If the British Parliament should actually adopt these views, however much I might regret a Repeal of the Union as seriously prejudicial to the interests of both countries, I should yet feel that a Legislature which considered itself bound to oppose, on religious principle, the religious feelings of millions of their countrymen, however well adapted to Protestant England, had become unfitted by their strong, though honest, prepossessions to govern Roman Catholic Ireland, and could no longer legislate with advantage for a people with whom they could not sympathize. But, how can a line of demarcation be drawn? it has been asked. On what principle can we fairly establish a difference in meting out the public money between the Roman Catholics of Ireland and the Free Church of Scotland, and others who dissent from the Established Church? On every plea, I say, my Lords, which expediency recommends—on every ground which justice sanctions. In Ireland, the people have not seceded from their Church, but their Church has been torn from them; and at the present time not a minority, not an equality in point of numbers, but an overwhelming majority of the nation, remain profoundly attached to their early faith. But the noble Earl who moved the Amendment has told us that this measure was not required by any party, and will produce no practical good. So thought not those who are best acquainted with the practical grievances of Roman Catholic Ireland—the Roman Catholic prelates of that country. When I read their statement—that memorial to which my noble Friend (Earl St. Germans) has adverted in his able speech, when I became acquainted with the miserable details of poverty which attach to the institution
1314
of Maynooth—when I found that two or three students were compelled to sleep in the same bed from want of accommodation; that actually term time was frequently broken up from the want of funds to purchase the provisions necessary to keep body and soul together—when I saw that studies intended to elevate the character and improve the minds of the priesthood were in consequence suspended, and in this manner the object of the institution practically defeated — and more than all, when I learnt that many of the parishes in Ireland remain without pastors in consequence of the defective arrangements resulting from this miserable state of penury, I sickened at the notion that such a condition of things could have been so long tolerated by this really generous country, and I warmly concurred in the intended measure of the Government. This country may be for a season deluded by its prejudices; but, I believe, that it will ultimately awake to a sense of the propriety of this measure. Public opinion is often, I think, in England, mistaken in the direction it first takes on public questions, but it is generally fair and right in the long run. But the noble Earl who moved the Amendment spoke of fear. He spoke of the Government as being acted upon by fear in bringing forward this measure. The Ministers of the Crown can defend themselves; and will, I doubt not, reply to this observation of the noble Earl; but I would distinctly ask him to what he refers? Fear of whom, and fear of what? Does the noble Earl advert to distant clouds in the western hemisphere? If so, I should have thought that any apprehension in that quarter would have been tranquillized by the statement of Her Majesty's Ministers on a recent occasion, that while this country would continue to treat the rights of other States with almost religious exactness, it would still maintain inviolate, at all costs and at every hazard, the honour and interests of Great Britain. Does the noble Earl advert to an apprehension on the part of the Government of some ebullition of political discontent in Ireland? Never was such an apprehension less likely to operate on the minds of men. The majesty of the law had just been vindicated; those monster meetings which carried terror in to the hearts of the Protestant population had just been suppressed; law may indeed have technically faded in one memorable instance, but the spirit of law was yet triumphant! A happy conjuncture of circumstances rendered the time pecuï

1315
liarly well chosen for the adoption of this measure. We have, at the present moment, as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland Lord Heytesbury, a man of great conciliation and great sagacity, as those are well aware who have lived in countries where he served his Sovereign with undeviating fidelity, and with that talent and address which were never wanting even under circumstances of almost unexampled difficulty. Never was a wiser or more fortunate appointment made. The noble Earl spoke of idolatry as connected with the Roman Catholic religion; and the words idolatry and idolaters flowed very glibly from the lips of one right rev. Prelate. These, my Lords, are hard words, particularly when uttered in the presence of noble individuals who must acutely feel these aspersions on their faith. But I do not object to this language only because it is unnecessarily uncourteous, but because I think it incorrect and unjust. I cannot admit that the charge of idolatry attaches to educated and enlightened Roman Catholics. That right rev. Prelate has revelled in the still vaguer charges of Roman Catholic bigotry and superstition; but let me ask him, is there no bigotry but the bigotry of the Roman Catholics? Is there no bigotry in Protestant legislators now? Was there no Protestant bigotry in the days of Titus Oates, when this nation lent a ready ear to accusations which doomed the high, the noble, and the innocent to a shameful and unmerited death? Was there no bigotry in that Protestant population which, almost in our recollection, filled London with fire and terror, and was led to the work of devastation by the scion of one of the noblest houses of Protestant England? The fierce, intractable, undisciplined spirit which grew up with the Reformation, and was the evil genius of a movement intrinsically good, survives in the intolerant petitions which crowd the Table of your Lordships' House to-day. It was my lot, my Lords, in early life, during the Spanish civil wars, to mingle with the rude uneducated soldiers of the faith—children of the Inquisition as they were called—and with the priesthood who directed them; but yet I never heard, even in moments of the fiercest excitement, expressions half so uncharitable to our faith as those which, week after week, have been lavished upon the Roman Catholics by the respectable and enlightened Protestant Dissenters of my country. I cannot, my Lords, contrast their intemperate language at many of our public meetings with the calm, forgiving,
1316
and dignified tone, adopted by the Roman Catholic gentry on a recent occasion, without feelings of mingled shame and sorrow. I do not intend to speak disrespectfully of any class of my countrymen in using these expressions; but I do sincerely regret the course pursued upon this occasion by many dissenting bodies in this country. Thank God! the clergy of the Established Church have, generally speaking, remained during the whole of this crisis tolerant and tranquil. I have trespassed for a long time upon the attention of the House. I have only one or two concluding observations to make. The great movement which took place in county Clare, as far back as 1828, and which announced even before the Ministerial fiat had gone forth, that exclusive power had already passed away from a respectable and once most influential party, and that the reign of Roman Catholic disabilities were virtually at an end, were not to my mind more full of prophecy, than are the events which have occurred in Ireland within the last two or three years—events which convince me that we can no longer stand with safety on the beaten track. The Government has been anxious, I believe, to promote the interests of Ireland; but this anxiety has not sufficed to produce political calm. I am sure that no Government can henceforth calculate upon a single hour of settled peace in Ireland—a single hour of assured safety for the Protestant institutions of that country, unless we confer practical remedies where practical grievances are felt, unless we mitigate by the consideration of our general treatment, a sense in the Irish mind of those anomalies in our institutions, the existence of which we may regret, but which in my humble opinion it would be equally wrong and perilous to assail; unless, in short, we walk hand in hand, at least as far as we safely can, not only with Irish interests, but with Irish sympathies. My Lords, I am no eulogist of the present or of any Government; there is indeed a portion of their Irish policy, a measure just introduced into Parliament from which I totally dissent, and to which I look with the utmost apprehension; still with reference to the Bill before us, I feel that a debt of gratitude is due to Her Majesty's Ministers. It is easy to bring forward measures fraught with popular inducements; but to propose a measure which will shake their popularity in the country, expose them to the misconstruction of enemies, and to that which is per-

1317
haps more painful, the alienation of former friends, this is an ordeal which requires the exercise of a courageous honesty; and nothing, I conceive, can have induced the Ministers of the Crown to adopt a policy so detrimental to their immediate popularity, but an honourable determination to prefer the real and permanent interests of the country to prejudices however respectable, and to the clamour—I trust only the fleeting clamour—of the day.
The Earl of Winchilseasaid, since he had had the honour of a seat in that House, he had never risen to address their Lordships under the influence of more painful feelings than he did upon the present occasion; for this night he found himself diametrically opposed to the leaders of that political party with which he had been so long connected, and to whom, entertaining the most sanguine expectations from their declarations, he had, when they took office, given his unqualified support. He found himself opposed to them on public grounds; and if this was a most painful situation for him to be placed in, how much more painful was it when he knew he should also be separated from many noble Lords, for whom he entertained the deepest respect, and with whom he had been connected by the strongest ties of human friendship! He found himself opposed to them on a question deeply affecting the great interests of this country; and he hoped and trusted, and fervently prayed, that the result of this night might not produce those heartfelt regrets, which he could testify some noble Friends of his had carried with them to the grave, who had supported, in 1829, that measure which had shivered their party to the winds, as this would do. The predictions respecting that measure had been verified to the letter; he was against it then, and he was of that opinion now; and fervently did he hope that, when noble Lords looked back hereafter to the votes they would give that night, they would be saved from that remorse, bitter indeed, which some noble Lords would have given the world to be free from. This was a question, which from the bottom of his heart and soul he believed, if their Lordships gave their assent to it, would prove in the result an act of the greatest national suicide ever committed by any civilized country since the world had been called into existence. It was the question of the endowment of a Roman Catholic Church in a Protestant country for the first time since any nation had cast off the yoke
1318
of Rome. It was a question of great and vital importance to this great Protestant country; and he only stated this—that if he thought that this concession of principle would tend to the pacification of Ireland, he would endeavour to bring his mind, if he could, to support this measure. But it was impossible—if we, as a Protestant country, acted upon the principles which our ancestors professed, who, acting on sound wisdom and sounder religious principles, placed us upon the rock of Protestantism—that we could, as Protestants, abandon that position. Some noble Lords might sincerely ask, "What is Protestantism?" He would answer, not that "ideal thing" that it had been described by a late Member of Her Majesty's Government, from whom England had expected great things, but who had supported this measure by a speech so mystified by casuistry and Jesuitical reasoning, that he, after most frequent and earnest perusal of it, had come to the conclusion, that that right hon. Gentleman must have been educated at some seminary of Jesuits. He would tell what Protestantism was. It was our national Christianity; it was the religion of the Bible; it was the religion which our Lord and Saviour bequeathed to us as the first and most invaluable of all earthly possessions, the most sacred of all religious trusts. Then it had been asked, "What has Protestantism done for England?" It was, in the first place, the foundation of our long-cherished civil and religious liberty. Secondly, it was the foundation of that openness and honesty of character, and of those moral virtues, which had elevated our nation above every other on the face of the globe, which had proved the foundation of English greatness, and of our unparalleled Empire. England's greatness had proved the truth of God's unerring word, that nations which upheld his honour and glory he will uphold. He had on another occasion drawn their Lordships' attention to the strong distinction between the Members of the Gallican Church and those of the Ultramontane Church; and he had said he could with safety make concessions to those members of the Church of Rome by whom he saw himself surrounded, and for whom he did not feel anything but Christian kindness. He protested, however, against this measure, in the name of the great body of the Protestants of this country, amongst whom it had excited stronger and more irritated feelings than had ever been shown at any

1319
period of our history. Their Table groaned under the petitions of the people against this Bill. In the other House of Parliament the number of petitions received had been 11,000, and they had been signed by between 1,300,000 and 1,500,000 persons. He protested against the measure, on the ground that it would be an act of national sin against God, to pass a Bill for the endowment of a Church which the majority, at least, of their Lordships had declared that they believed to be idolatrous and superstitious. There were, in fact, three distinct grounds on which he felt bound to protest against this measure. The first was, that it was a national endowment of the Church of Rome. He knew it had been said that it was a mental delusion, or a mere quibble, to treat this Bill as though the proposed alteration in the grant was an alteration in the principle upon which it was made; but, with all humility, he must declare that in his opinion it would be a downright absurdity to consider it in any other light. Another ground on which he opposed the measure was, that it was in direct opposition to the oath which the Sovereign took when she ascended the Throne of this great Protestant Empire. Although he did not rise with the noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle) to refer to that subject at the commencement of the discussion, yet he entertained a very strong feeling that before so great a change was proposed to be made in the constitution of the country, the Ministers of the Crown ought, in the first instance, to have obtained the approbation and consent of their Sovereign. The third ground on which he protested against the Bill was, that there were certain opinions and principles inculcated and taught in the College of Maynooth which were antisocial, disloyal, and intolerant. He could not but remark that the grant, when originally made, was not intended to be perpetual. Any one who looked into the Parliamentary documents of 1798, would find that the Government of that day had the greatest difficulty in getting the grant conceded in the Irish Parliament three years after it was first carried. With reference to the tenets taught at Maynooth, he must say, that if in any College in this country he found only the works of authors who held Unitarian doctrines, he would naturally come to the conclusion that that establishment was devoted to the teaching of those particular doctrines. He would not refer at any length to the works used at Maynooth, but there were
1320
one or two to which he would shortly advert. Their Lordships would all agree that the welfare and even the existence of society, the security of life and property, the safety of the Throne, depended on the sacredness and inviolability of an oath. If any person took an oath with a mental reservation, he believed there was not a Protestant in the Empire who would not consider him to be guilty of gross perjury. Now Bailly, who was the author of a Maynooth class book, said, at p. 125, vol. ii., that vows and oaths were of equal consideration. In this their Lordships would agree with him. He then went on to say, however, that there existed in the Church a power to dispense with vows and oaths; and that this power was expedient, nay, necessary for the common good of the people; since that which was in the first instance better and more salutary, might become less good and less salutary. He then mentioned, as just causes of dispensing with an oath, the honour of God and the utility of the Church. It had been denied that the College of Maynooth was a Jesuitical establishment. But who was this Bailly, whose work on moral theology was shown by public documents to be a standard class book at Maynooth? He was, it appeared, a French ecclesiastic. For twenty-five years he was Professor of Theology in the College of Dijon; and during the time of Napoleon his works were actually prohibited from being read in seminaries of the Church, because they were tainted with the principles of Ignatius Loyola. If such were the antisocial, disloyal, and intolerant principles in which the priesthood of the Ultramontane Church in Ireland were educated in Maynooth College, and if the same principles were instilled into the breasts of the great body of the Roman Catholic body over whom they had spiritual charge, when they left that College, could their Lordships wonder at the distraction, disloyalty, and disaffection to the Protestant Monarch and the Protestant laws and Government of this country, which had, for a period reaching beyond the memory of man, characterized the great body of Roman Catholic subjects in Ireland? It had been contended that this grant of 30,000 l. a year would totally alter the character of the principles inculcated in this College, and that they would become more liberal and enlightened. What security had they, after surrendering all power of inspection and inquiry, that such would be the result? His own

1321
belief was, that the present state of things would continue. If the Catholics conscientiously adhered to these opinions, a mere money consideration would surely not induce them to alter them. If he himself held a conscientious opinion, neither 26,000 l. nor 100,000 l. would be sufficient to effect a change in his mind; and he thought it was precisely so with the Catholics of Ireland. Whilst France was doing all in her power to prevent the education of the people from falling into the hands of the priests, we were, on the other hand, doing everything to put it into their hands. A greater delusion could not fall upon that House, than that under which it might sanction such a measure as this. The noble Earl then quoted extracts from a Catholic gentleman, the author of "Catholicism in Austria," to show that the monks were constantly in the habit of keeping up a foreign correspondence, and that they paid more obedience to their foreign superiors than to those who had the immediate supervision of them. He could not, acting conscientiously with the duty which he owed to his God, support a system of education which inculcated such principles as those which were taught at Maynooth; and it appeared to him to be downright insanity in the Government of this country to propose such a measure as this; for the obnoxious opinions to which he had alluded would continue to be inculeated in the College which they were now preparing to endow. The Government, instead of this, should, as a right rev. Prelate had urged last night, act up to its duty, without fearing for the result. No country which abandoned its duty, and was guilty of a sacrifice of principle, could reasonably expect to escape the punishment which such culpable conduct was certain to entail upon it. He would raise his voice to the very last against this measure, and he would fight it out. Let not the lofty mitre be unfaithful to its high trust; let not right rev. Prelates abandon the sacred duty which they were now called upon to perform; let them not desert the Church, of which they were the honoured heads, in this the hour of its danger and distress. How could they, or any of them, support a measure of this kind without justly forfeiting the respect and esteem of the great body of the Church of this country? He would join with the right rev. Prelate who had last spoken, and say, that rather than see the disgusting spectacle of a State endowment of
1322
two Churches, he would raise his voice for a severance of the Established Church from the State; nor would he cease his efforts until he had effected it. This was a bold declaration, and their Lordships might consider it so. Let not the glittering star, or the tempting ribbon, or the highsounding title, cajole or deceive any noble Lord into a favourable vote that night. He feared that many of those who would vote for the Bill would yet carry a feeling of bitter remorse with them to the grave. The question could not rest here. The Protestant feeling of England was so strong that it could not so rest. This was a direct endowment of the Roman Catholic Church. Other measures would follow—were sure to follow. They were to have bit-by-bit legislation, administered in successive doses, as the quack administered his nostrums to conceal the extent to which he had dosed the unconscious and unhappy patient. No outbreak would ensue in Ireland from withholding this measure, but he would not answer for what might be the consequences in England of passing it. He hoped that every noble Lord who agreed with him on this momentous question, would join with him in controlling and regulating that deep and pervading feeling which the proposal of this measure had excited in the Protestant mind of England.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that to all that the noble Earl had said as to his own strong feeling upon the measure then before their Lordships, he gave the most implicit belief. But before he briefly adverted to some of the remarks of the noble Earl, he must say, that there was nothing in the noble Earl's speech which precluded him from putting this question to their Lordships, how was it that from the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Roden), who had led the opposition to this measure, down to the noble Earl who had just spoken, not one single person who had spoken on that side of the question had addressed himself to the fact—so clearly, so concisely, and so conclusively alluded to by the noble Duke in moving the second reading—that their Lordships were legislating for six millions of Catholics; for a nation seven-eighths of whose people were Catholics; to which the noble Duke most justly and tersely added, that their Lordships could not avoid, that they, the majority of the Irish poople, would continue Catholics? No one could argue this question in a statesmanlike manner, if he

1323
allowed his mind to be swayed from that fact. As to much of what had been stated by the noble Earl, he felt it unnecessary to trouble their Lordships in answer. He paid the greatest respect to the religious feelings with which the noble Earl had addressed their Lordships; but when the noble Earl said that he felt himself obliged to part politically from those to whom he had been attached, he could not but remind him of the very next sentence in his speech, which brought to his recollection that this was not the first time that the noble Earl had been so obliged to separate himself. The noble Earl stated that, in 1829, the party to which he belonged was shivered to atoms. But those entrusted with the conduct of the affairs of this kingdom were obliged to be guided by practical considerations. The noble Earl, therefore, found those with whom he was associated, and who were entrusted with the affairs of this country, under the painful obligation of differing from him on this great and important question. The noble Earl asked what was Protestantism? and seemed afraid that he should meet with some flippant reply. Not so from him. As to what the noble Earl said with regard to the benefits which Protestantism had conferred on this country, with every word which he uttered upon this point, he (the Marquess of Normanby) cordially concurred. More than that, he was prepared to say, that, so far as they could, they should do all in their power, consistently with other obligations, to strengthen that system of religion. He might here allude to the humble part which he himself had taken in protecting those, in a distant dependency of this country, who were endeavouring to spread Protestantism among the negroes in Jamaica. The noble Earl seemed to identify our Colonial Empire with the exclusive maintenance of the Protestant religion. The exigencies of our Colonial Empire might sometimes oblige them to do that which might not always seem strictly accordant with Protestant or Christian principles; and he must remind their Lordships, that in India there existed a religion endowed by the State which was not even Christian. He said the noble Earl's argument completely failed, when he attempted to connect the extent of our Colonial Empire and the magnitude of our dominions with the exclusive maintenance of Protestantism; and, therefore, he said
1324
also, that although Protestantism had done well for England, it did not do well for Ireland. And why? Because it had been found impossible, notwithstanding the efforts of three centuries, notwithstanding all the powers of the Legislature, and all the rigour, and sometimes the violence of the Executive, to force it upon the unwilling minds of the people. He, therefore, limited the benefit conferred by Protestantism to those parts of the Empire where it was the religion of the great majority of the people. As to what were called the Ultramontane doctrines of the Roman Catholics as to the Oath of Allegiance—the noble Lord stated it as if it proved that the Ultramontane doctrines formed the creed and practice of Maynooth. This was distinctly denied, and he believed the very reverse to be the truth. The noble Lord then entered into an analysis of oaths and vows, which he considered to be the same thing. Certainly, if the oath were of the same nature as the vow, they were the same; but though there was a power of dispensation for vows made in respect to religious observances, there was a distinct and positive denial that any such dispensing power existed in the case of the Oath of Allegiance. He would beg to read to their Lordships—although he was always unwilling to trouble them with documents—a few words of evidence given on the occasion to which the noble Earl alluded, and from an authority to which he would, no doubt, be ready to defer. What he was going to quote, was stated by the Rev. Matthias Croly, who had been one of the Professors at Maynooth, but had renounced what were called the errors of Popery, and had become a Protestant clergyman. The noble Earl, therefore, would consider this as perfectly unsuspicious testimony.
"Did you teach that the power of the Pope was confined to spiritual things, and that he had no power in temporal matters?—I forget whether that question was discussed in our course of divinity while I was there. What was your own belief at that time upon that subject?—My belief was, that his power was confined to spirituals. What did you believe at that time with respect to oaths; did you believe that the Pope had the power to absolve you from an oath of allegiance taken to the Crown?—I did not. I took the Oath of Allegiance when I returned to the College of Maynooth a second time; and I declared, when I took that oath, that I did not believe that any power upon earth had any power to absolve me from it. Did you so believe at that

1325
time?—I did. Was that the prevailing opinion at that time in the College, so far as you were acquainted with it?—I believe it was."
So far, then, from the noble Earl having redeemed his pledge, he thought he (the Marquess of Normanby) had, on his side, confirmed what had been said by a noble Lord (Lord Clifford of Chudleigh) so clearly last night, and which had not been contradicted by the noble Earl. A great deal of prejudice, he knew, had been excited with regard to the class books used at Maynooth. Now, he admitted that some of these books contained passages which he thought it would be better not to put into the hands of the pupils at such a seminary; but let their Lordships recollect there was no proof that the doctrines contained in them were taught, or that these particular parts of the books were submitted to the pupils. In these books, as in books of science, law, and on many other subjects, there might be parts which one would not wish to be exposed to the inspection of very young persons. We must judge of the tree by its fruits. [Cheers from Lord Roden and other Peers.] He accepted the cheer of the noble Earl opposite. He was aware that they differed on this and on many other points; but however they differed in political opinions, the noble Earl knew him to be a person who had taken great pains to inform himself on all these matters when in Ireland. He believed he could appeal to those of all political persuasions in their Lordships' House, that there were no complaints of the moral conduct of the young men who were instructed at Maynooth. As to those whom they were taught to instruct, was it not a fact that the Irish people possessed more than an average share of honesty, for instance? He believed he was speaking under the mark, when he stated, that of offences against property, there were 70 committed in England, for 30 in Ireland. And with respect to the Irish women of every degree, was it not notorious to the world that a race of women more exemplary in the discharge of all the domestic and social duties was not to be found on the face of the earth? Was it nothing, too—and this was coming one step nearer to the connexion between the habits of the people, and the religious instruction which they received—was it nothing that the Irish people had cured themselves of inveterate habits, and were at the present
1326
moment a most sober people? He believed that that reformation would have been neither so general nor so permanent, if it had not mixed up with their religious feelings and religious instruction. Before he left this part of the subject, he wished to read to their Lordships one of the rules in force at Maynooth. It was in these words:—
"Strenuam operam navato theologicus dogmaticus professor persuadeat sacrosancta fidei jura esse quæ Regiæ Majestati obligatos tenent, nulla vi extorqueri posse, nulla potestate resolvi."
Anything more clear than this, which was on the statutes of Maynooth, or more directly contrary to anything that could tend to teach absolution from the Oath of Allegiance, he thought he could not produce. Much had been said of the disloyalty of the Irish priests. He could truly declare that when he was connected with the Government in Ireland he had received on all occasions the most important assistance from that body in the discovery of crime; and not only in the discovery of crime, but these priests exercised their influence almost universally with beneficial effect in its prevention. As to violent language towards those opposed to them in religious opinions, it must be confessed that there was much to be regretted on that score on all sides in Ireland; and before he sat down, he was afraid he should have to convince their Lordships that such language, so uncharitable to those opposed to them, was not confined to Roman Catholic priests, but had been used by a Member of their Lordships' House, who now sat upon the right rev. Bench. In the circumstance referred to by the noble Earl, as having occurred at Dingle, he believed there might have been much to complain of in the manner in which the parties were treated. But a noble Duke, not now present (the Duke of Manchester), had attempted to connect the priests and the hierarchy of Ireland with all the crime that was committed; he said that all the crime originated at their conferences—that the bishops settled at their annual meetings what was to be the fashionable crime, and the order of crime for the year; this was communicated to the priests, and that they inculcated it on the people. Anything more monstrous, or more utterly void of foundation, he had never heard, even in the most extraordinary paroxysms

1327
of fanaticism. He was far from denying that the state of crime at present in Ireland was very formidable. From the Returns of the Constabulary for the last year, it appeared that serious offences in certain parts of Ireland had so operated upon the aggregate amount of crime, as to make it exceed that which had occurred for twelve or fourteen years before; and only this very morning he had been distressed by seeing an account of a collision between the police and the peasantry in Leitrim, in which the former at first had the advantage, but the people renewed the conflict, and drove the police from the spot. He attached no blame to the police for their general conduct. Nothing could be more effective than the police force of Ireland; and none could be more energetic in their efforts to repress crime. When the noble Duke attempted to connect the state of crime with the Roman Catholic priests, as if organized by them, he must express his humble opinion of the absurdity of such an argument. But there was a curious fact in the proof attempted by the noble Duke; for he had stopped at the year 1833, and begun again in the year 1845. Why had he omitted those years which had been the subject of an inquiry originated by the noble Earl opposite? The noble Earl had on a former occasion said that all the mischief was caused by the priests. "All this." he said, "must be put down—'Delenda est Carthago.'" That was the noble Earl's case; but what was the opinion of the Committee to which the subject was referred? They were of opinion that no body of men had ever used more energy for the repression of crime than the Roman Catholic priests had done during the period referred to; and this the noble Duke had omitted. He now came to a speech which he, in common with some of their Lordships, had heard last night—and he had never heard any speech with greater pain than that which had been addressed to their Lordships by a right rev. Prelate towards the close of the discussion. He had never heard a speech every passage and every word of which dealt more exclusively in a feeling of antagonism, and showed less sympathy for the millions of his countrymen, amongst whom the speaker had been elevated to the post which gave him the honour of a seat in their Lordships' House. He was not aware that it was
1328
necessary for him to follow that speech in detail; but he was anxious to make a few comments upon it early in the debate, while it was fresh in the recollection of those of their Lordships who had heard it. The right rev. Prelate was rather apt to deal in figures of speech. On the first occasion when he addressed the House, he made some allusion in a metaphor, which it was not easy to follow, about a "coach and horses." The danger of using these figures was, that their failure gave a tendency to ridicule, which he should be sorry to see indulged on an occasion of so much solemnity. Last night that right rev. Prelate spoke of a draught. He asked, would you recommend to others a draught which you wonld object to take yourself? Now, in the first place, the right rev. Prelate put himself in a position which he did not occupy. He was not the physician to prescribe the medicine; whether rightly or in error, the patient chose another physician; and the question was not whether you would recommend to him a draught which you would not take yourself, but whether you would allow the patient to apply for aid to the physician in whom he had confidence. The right rev. Prelate, in presenting a petition the other night, and pronouncing an eulogium upon the moral and professional character of the Protestant clergy of Ireland, in every word of which he was happy to be able sincerely to concur, had said that perhaps there might be some appointments of noble Lords opposite to him to which there might be some objection. He thought that when noble Lords on the Ministerial bench heard the torrent of intolerance which was poured into their ears, some feeling of regret must have crossed their minds for the indiscretion of one of their appointments in supplying the diocese to which the right rev. Prelate had been elevated. He thought a man of humbler spirit, of more enlightened mind, of more firm reliance on his own faith, and, at the same time, a more comprehensive charity for the conscientious faith of others, than the late Bishop Sandes could not exist; and to the end of his life one of the circumstances upon which he should reflect with the greatest satisfaction was, that it had been in his power to recommend to his Sovereign the elevation of Dr. Sandes to the See of Cashel. The right rev. Prelate succeeded him, and delivered a charge on his visita-

1329
tion. He would read to the right rev. Prelate what was generally believed to be the substance of the charge delivered by him on that occasion. He was informed that, if necessary, what he was about to read would be verified upon oath.
The Bishop of Cashel: The charge I delivered was printed and published. Is it on the printed and published charge the noble Marquess is about to accuse me, or is it on some hearsay and garbled statement? [Loud Cries of "Hear, hear."]
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, he was informed that it was taken down by a person who was present. [Renewed Cries off "Hear, hear."]
The Bishop of Cashel: I printed and published my charge, and I am not accountable for any other version of it.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, what he was about to read was what the right rev. Prelate was supposed to have said. It was in the following words:—
"That Satan, with all his ingenuity, never contrived a more diabolical system to estrange the souls of men than the Popish religion—that the breath of the Popish priests was contamination, and he warned those under his spiritual care to avoid them as much as possible, and keep to themselves; they should keep no Catholic servants, for the bad morals of those people should be avoided as a plague; they should also be more exclusive in their dealings. With regard to the national schools, he commanded his clergy to caution their flocks not to send their children to what were commonly called national schools, but which would more properly be called devil's schools."
The Bishop of Cashel: It may perhaps be irregular, but after such a charge as that which has been openly made against me, I must get up and answer it. I can only say, that from beginning to end the accusation is false and abominable. [Vehement Cheers, particularly from the Episcopal Benches.] And I must say, I think it a most discreditable thing that a noble Lord who has filled the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and who has had opportunities of making himself somewhat acquainted with the people of that country, should, when the charge has been printed, published, and circulated, have kept a document in his pocket sent him by some enemy. [Immense cheering, in which the Bishop of Exeter joined with great energy] The charge I did deliver I shall have the honour of sending to his Lordship; and I hope it will disabuse him and open his eyes a little on the subject,
1330
and make him distrust a little those from whom he hears stories from Ireland. [Loud Cheering.] If it would not be trespassing too much on your Lordships, I would ask him to read some of that charge to your Lordships next time he is in want of a speech. [Loud Cheers.]
The Marquess of Normanbytrusted he had extended every courtesy to the right rev. Prelate. [The Bishop of Cashel appeared to wish to proceed with his answer, but the Marquess of Normanby proceeded.] The right rev. Prelate was wrong in supposing he had had the document for a length of time. He had heard of the matter two years ago, but the words had been in his hands only since yesterday morning. He should now read, with the name of a Protestant clergyman who was present at the delivery of the charge, an account of its nature. As to the words he had referred to, he had no knowledge of them, but this letter came from the Rev. Mr. Mackesy, and was in reference to the charge delivered by the Bishop of Cashel in 1843.
The Earl of Charlevillerose to order. He put it to their Lordships whether, after the disclaimer given by the right rev. Prelate of his having made use of any language but what was contained in the charge which he had printed, it was either customary or usual in their Lordships' House to attach to a Peer, a Member of that House, hearsay statements communicated to a noble Lord who had not given the authority upon which he was making them. The noble Lord had undoubtedly stated, in reference to this letter, that he was prepared to give his authority; but after the contradiction which the right rev. Prelate had given to the assertions in toto, he put it to their Lordships whether it was consistent with the custom, the usage, the practice, or the habit of debate in that House, to persist in statements which a Member of that House from his place asserted were not true.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, in the first place, the noble Earl was wrong in his recollection. He was not aware that the right rev. Prelate had said that there was nothing in the charge but what he had printed.
The Bishop of Cashelsaid, he would send the noble Marquess the charge as it had been delivered.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, if the right rev. Prelate would say that there was nothing in the charge as delivered that was

1331
not contained in the printed one, he (the Marquess of Normanby) should say no more.
The Bishop of Cashelsaid, it was printed as completely verbatim as any publication of a speech could be. He did not say that every word was the same, but as far as he was capable of judging of an honest publication, it was that of the charge which he should send to the noble Marquess.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, he should now proceed—and he was perfectly in order in doing so—to read to their Lordships the impression which had been made by the charge.
The Earl of Winchilseasaid, he must really rise to order, and enter his decided protest against this course of proceeding. The noble Marquess referred to a public charge delivered by a bishop on subjects of great importance, and then he called upon them to hear the individual opinions of this man or that man. Where was this to end? The right rev. Prelate had declared, that the paper read contained a false representation of the charge delivered by him, and had offered to place the charge itself in the hands of the noble Marquess, and he hoped he would go no farther. If the noble Marquess considered what was due to himself, and to the character of their Lordships' House, he would not say a word more on the subject.
Here several Peers rose to order simultaneously.
The Marquess of Lansdowneobtained a hearing, and said that, after what had passed, there could not be the least doubt that it would be improper, and he was sure it was far from being the intention of his noble Friend, to state one word as having been used by the right rev. Prelate which he denied. What he understood his noble Friend to be about to do was to state—he had not the means of knowing what the statement was, for he had not yet seen it; but his noble Friend had distinctly stated his intention—and he was perfectly in order—to read the impression which had been produced upon an individual who heard the charge, and the general opinion entertained of the Prelate who pronounced it. This, he repeated, was perfectly in order. It had been done again and again in that House, and the opinions of various persons had been quoted in that House as to the state of Ireland as arising out of the conduct of those in authority there. The noble Earl (the Earl of Roden) had done it himself. In fact it had been done on both
1332
sides of the House, and there was not a shadow of objection to his noble Friend reading such a document as connected with his own views on the subject.
The Earl of Winchilseasaid, that after what had occurred, he did not think it a fair or even a just course to a Peer, even bearing a lay, but especially a clerical character, to allow it to be read.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, he should read the letter to which he referred, as the impression made upon the mind of a Protestant clergyman, who, at the visitation in question, had been censured by the right rev. Prelate for having visited a national school. [Much confusion, and cries for order.]
The Earl of Wicklowadmitted, that the noble Marquess was not at all out of order; but it was for him to exercise his own discretion as to the fairness or propriety of his pursuing the subject, after having brought one of the strongest charges he had ever heard against the right rev. Prelate.
The Marquess of Clanricardeand several other Peers again rose to order.
The Marquess of Normanbywas at length suffered to proceed. He said he should read the letter, putting altogether out of view the confirmation of the substance of the charge as derived from the impression of persons present. It was in these terms:—
"Glebe House, Clashmore, May 16, 1845.
"With regard to national education, the system was denounced by the Bishop of Cashel in the most decided terms. I shall not easily forget the painful position in which I stood at the visitation, when, after a ministry of nearly a quarter of a century, without a blemish on my character, and honoured with many strong testimonials (among them one from my late diocesan, Dr. Sandes), I was, for the first time in my life, subjected to the severe animadversions of my bishop, on account of my candid avowal of opinions favourable to national education. Amongst the whole assembled body of the clergy, I alone declared myself friendly to the system; and I was told by the bishop, that a Protestant clergyman could not, consistently with his duty, visit a national school, even for the purpose of seeing the rules carried out. I feel that my prospects of preferment have been blighted by the course I have pursued."
[Loud cheers from the Ministerial side.] Was it a matter of satisfaction to noble Lords that a clergyman whose character for thirty years was unimpeached, and who had testimonials from his late dio-

1333
cesan, should, merely because he stated that he had been present at an examination of a school sanctioned by the Government of his country, and conducted on a system countenanced by the Parliament, receive a censure and reprehension which had never before been applied to any part of his conduct? [Loud cries of "Hear, hear," from the Ministerial, side.] He was sorry to perceive by that cheer that there was an indication of the spirit which he regretted to see introduced in the diocese to which he alluded in other quarters also. The letter which he had in his hand went on to say—
"But I have the consolation of knowing that the national school established by me in this parish has been of infinite benefit, notwithstanding that I was told by the bishop he would prefer my having no school at all. Permit me to add, that I have the happiness of living on the most cordial terms with my Roman Catholic neighbours, and I feel proud to acknowledge that from Roman Catholics, both lay and clerical, I have ever experienced more kindness than I can express, and for which, I trust, I am not ungrateful.—Believe me, my dear Sir, yours most truly,
"WILLIAM MACKESY.
"Very Rev. Dr. Fogarty, V.G. and P.P., Lismore."
Their Lordships would recollect that in the part of the country to which that letter referred, it was almost impossible to collect together a school consisting of others than Roman Catholics. The writer was the Rev. Mr. Mackesy, the Rector of Clashmore. The right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Cashel) opposite had concluded his speech last night with a quotation through which he (the Marquess of Normanby) would not follow him. It was a quotation which he had himself described as too coarse to be introduced to their Lordships, and it certainly could not be said, that there was any excuse for that coarseness to be found in its applicability. The right rev. Prelate appeared, from his speech last night, to consider himself a sacrificed man; for he talked about crossing the Atlantic, of the sufferings of the Martyrs, and of being led to the stake like Cranmer. It appeared, however, notwithstanding the eloquent allusion of the right rev. Prelate to the sufferings of martyrdom, the only stake to which he had been tied as yet, was the See of Cashel; and the only martyrdom which he had suffered, was the sitting on that bench so near the noble Lords who were his bene-
1334
factors, and who had placed him there. The noble Earl (the Earl of Roden) who had spoken last night on this subject, appeared to have rather an exaggerated idea as to the universal feeling of the Protestants of Ireland on the subject of this proposed grant—a fact which a letter that he had received from a clergyman in Ireland went very far to illustrate. The letter to which he had alluded was written by the Rev. Mr. Smith, Rector of Larne, a town three-fourths of the population of which were Protestants. Larne was, he might remark, one of the places from which a petition had been presented by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Roden) against the grant to Maynooth; and it did not appear that, so far as that town was concerned, there existed anything like the unanimous feeling of opposition to the grant which the noble Earl appeared to think characterized the Protestants of Ireland. The letter which he had received from Mr. Smith, contained a passage to the effect—that in the four parishes surrounding him, containing 12,000 persons, who were almost entirely Protestants, there was a complete absence of any strong feeling with regard to the measure, although a petition had been presented from that district against the Bill—[Earl of Roden: Hear, hear]: yet it contained but 200 signatures out of that population of 12,000. The noble Earl cheered the statement that a petition had been agreed to against Maynooth, but he had cheered too soon; for it appeared that there were but 200 signatures to that petition out of a population of 12,000, and that was a proportion which could not be said to indicate any very unanimous or decided feeling amongst the population of that part of the country against the grant.
The Earl of Roden: Is Mr. Smith a clergyman of the Church of England?
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that Mr. Smith was a clergyman of the Church of England, being the Rector of Larne. He had received several other letters from different parts of Ireland, with which he would not on that occasion trouble their Lordships, as it was quite sufficient to state that their contents went to show that the statements which had been made, to the effect that there was a strong and unanimous feeling of opposition to this measure amongst the Irish Protestants, had been very greatly exaggerated. The noble Earl concluded his speech of last night with a

1335
spirited appeal on the part of the Protestants of Ireland against what he called the "ungrateful conduct of the Government" to them. With that part of the subject it was not his (the Marquess of Normanby's) intention to mix himself up—he would leave the noble Earl to settle the question with the noble Lords who sat near him, as to whether they had raised expectations in their supporters, by their previous conduct, which had not since been answered; but he would admit, with the noble Earl, that the conduct of the noble Lords on the opposite bench, when they first came into office, and, above all, the appointment of the right rev. Prelate opposite (Bishop of Cashell), was not such as could be supposed to give any ground for the expectation that they would adopt the course which they had since taken. On that question he would, however, leave the noble Earl to deal with the noble Lords, as he must be the best able to form a judgment with respect to it. He did not wish to look upon the subject of these measures in any connexion with party feeling; and he should only say that it would have been very fortunate if they had been introduced some years back, when there could be no doubt of the perfect success of the measure, which he trusted their Lordships would pass to-night by a large majority. It would have been a great advantage to have introduced those measures at a period when they would have received so favourable a consideration, and before such a prejudice had been raised upon the subject in England—before the word "register" had been sent abroad in connexion with the exhibition of anti-Catholic feelings, or before a cry expressive of those feelings had been raised on the hustings and elsewhere. He was of opinion that it would have been better and more fortunate if such a message of peace had been sent to Ireland while the Repeal cry was dead in that country, and when the Irish people looked anxiously in expectation of a series of measures of justice to that country, which had been pointed at in the other House of Parliament, and in that by a noble Viscount not then in his place. The noble Duke last night had stated that it was more honourable to concede such a measure in a moment of strength on the part of authority, and when Repeal was weak. He (the Marquess of Normanby) sincerely wished that the Repeal cry in Ireland was as dead as
1336
the noble Duke supposed it to be; but on the very day on which the noble Duke had delivered the speech referring to the weakness of Repeal, it appeared by the papers that there took place what he, from his knowledge of the country, looked upon as a formidable demonstration of the desire, on the part of those who had taken part in continuing that agitation, to persevere in it, and that the weakness of the Repeal cry in Ireland was not so great as the noble Duke appeared to think. [The Duke of Wellington: I never said a word about it.] He said, that he was only repeating the substance of the speech delivered by the noble Duke, which was, that it was more honourable to give concessions at a time of strength on the part of the Government, and weakness on the part of the advocates of Repeal. He wished sincerely, that he could concur in the opinion of the noble Duke with respect to the decline of that cry; but when, after eighteen months had elapsed since the projected meeting at Clontarf had been prevented, and when, after that period had elapsed, he saw a more formidable and a more numerous meeting in the heart of Dublin than that meeting would have been had it taken place—when he saw that meeting organized, and deputations attending it from different parts of the country—however he might wish to agree in opinion with the noble Duke, he could not participate in it. Whether, however, that were the case or not, he would give the Government full credit for the present measures—he gave them credit from himself, and, he believed, he might say on the part of his noble Friends around him, for the introduction of such measures; he approved of them for the good which they were calculated to effect, without reference to the quarter from which they came; for, however much the previous conduct of the Government had contributed to their present difficulty, those measures were calculated to confer benefit upon the country; and so long as they held power for the good of the country, and used it only for that purpose, no other Government could receive with more sincerity the sincere, and he trusted efficient, support which they gave to a system which they believed to be eminently calculated to improve the condition and maintain the integrity of the country.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, the House must permit him to say one word. He

1337
had not, in the speech to which the noble Marquess had alluded, said one syllable with respect to agitation, or the meeting in Dublin, of which he could have had, in fact, no knowledge at the time when he addressed their Lordships yesterday. What he did say was this: that no man, who saw this country, and saw the proceedings which had taken place in Ireland, could believe it possible by tumult and violence to force the Legislature of this great country to adopt the measure of a Repeal of the Legislative Union. That was the impression produced on his mind by the occurrences of the previous years, setting aside altogether the consideration of the effect produced by the decision of their Lordships in that House in the Appeal case, which had been before them in August and September last. That was his view; and he said, that in consequence of the course of events, during the preceding year, the Government was in strength—that authority was in strength in Ireland; and that the cause of Repeal was weak. He said not one word about agitation; for he knew well that no man could answer for the course of agitation, or as to what it might lead to from one day to another. He said what he knew to be true—that Government and authority were strong, and the Repeal cause was only upheld by a part of the Roman Catholics. He took care to guard himself in that too; for he stated, that many Roman Catholics were as much opposed to Repeal as any of their Lordships, and but few Protestants were Repealers, and as the Repeal cause was weak, they who were strong could not be suspected of acting from any views in bringing forward those measures other than those which they had avowed, and that they should take care even not to be suspected of persecuting those who were weak.
The Bishop of Cashelsaid, that he had never rebuked the Rev. Mr. Mackesy, at the visitation at Lismore; but the year after the visitation, the parish of Thurles was expected to become vacant, and Mr. Mackesy asked him (the Bishop of Cashel) to appoint him to it. To that he (the Bishop of Cashel) answered, that in giving preferments, he had a heavy responsibility imposed upon him, and that he would consider all the clergy of his diocese who were eligible to any spiritual office, whenever he was called on to use his spiritual
1338
power in that respect; but that no one of his clergy would ever find himself in a better situation in making his application, for expressing his approbation of himself.
The Archbishop of Dublinsaid, he had heard those who supported the Bill denounced in the strongest terms, as if all were latitudinarians who did not oppose the grant; and, as if every prelate who supported such a measure must necessarily be indifferent to his own religion, or indifferent to the Articles which he had subscribed. Amongst other statements which writers had made in treating this question, he had seen quoted something that he himself was alleged to have said in reference to the education which prevailed at the College of Maynooth. He did not, on that occasion, recollect whether he had said what was attributed to him by those writers or not. Perhaps he had; for with the education afforded at Maynooth, he had often expressed his dissatisfaction, and he knew that in some cases that education had been imperfect. It never occurred to him, however, up to the present time, that his opinion of its insufficiency was an argument against his consistency in now wishing it to be improved. He had had occasion, more than once, to examine students wild had been educated at Maynooth, and had become converts to Protestantism, and who had applied to him either for preferment in the Established Church, or as tutors; and he found their education very insufficient and imperfect. That imperfection might, he admitted, be in each case the fault of the student himself; but from what he had heard of that College from several Roman Catholics, as well as from his own experience, he was of opinion that there was a deficiency in the education given at Maynooth—that it was not such as was sufficient to constitute such a degree of instruction as would be expected from a well-educated Roman Catholic. He spoke, however, of the insufficiency of the education at Maynooth. He did not mean to say anything against the professors for not bringing up the students as Protestants instead of Roman Catholics. That was not to be expected. His object in supporting this measure was to obtain a better system of education—a more sufficient system—and he did not mean to say by that better education that he would be enabled to induce the Catholics to give up their pastors. They would

1339
not do that so easily. They could not, by a legislative enactment, induce 6,000,000 of Roman Catholics to become Protestants; but they could, by a legislative enactment, establish a system, which would give them better pastors, It was said that by making this a perpetual grant, the Ministry gave another ground of objection; but so far from thinking its perpetuity an objection, he was of opinion that it was a recommendation, by affording a great check to the evil which arose from making this question a battlefield every year in Parliament, It was stated by many of those who opposed the measure, that the Government would have no check upon the system of education at the College after the permanence of the grant had been once established. Why, noble Lords who opposed the measure had told them, in the most earnest manner, and in the strongest terms, that the College, under the check which now exists, was a place where disloyalty, and error, and every sort of crime, were taught; that the Ultramontane doctrines were inculcated; and that all the evils which could flow from those doctrines were produced. It appeared, then, that hitherto the system pursued at the College was miserably deficient, and that in order to meet the views of those who complained so loudly and strenuously of that system, it was absolutely necessary to adopt a better plan, which would be done by supporting this measure. Noble Lords had complained of the education at Maynooth; but that was an argument in favour of the increased grant; for the mode in which to secure a more perfect education was by a more liberal endowment. He was in favour of this enlarged endowment; and he spoke not only for himself, but for a great number of his clergy, who, though they were not the most clamorous clergy, were not the least pious or devoted to the Church, and who did not consider it a proof of indifference to their own faith, to exhibit toleration to that of others. He knew many Roman Catholics whom he greatly respected, though they differed from him in religious opinion; and he respected many Protestants who also differed widely from him in opinion on matters connected with religion. For example, he respected those who thought that the State ought to dictate to the subjects what they were to believe, although he held such a doctrine as that to be altogether opposed to
1340
the Gospel. If the State were to dictate in such matters, and no religion were to be tolerated but that enjoined by the State, then in this country, where the Episcopal Church was the Established Church, many of the Dissenters ought to be put down as well as the Roman Catholics: so it would be seen that the Dissenters who used that argument against the Catholics, were cutting the ground from under their feet; for, according to such a doctrine, they would not be more deserving of toleration than the Roman Catholics. He dissented entirely, however, from such a doctrine; and he also dissented from the doctrine that called this a profession of the tenets which were taught at Maynooth. Let any member of the Established Church who used that argument carry it out fairly and manfully, and see what it would lead to. If that objection were to be successful against this grant to Maynooth, why should it not be urged with equal strength against the grants to Roman Catholic chaplains of gaols, and to all cases in which any Minister of the Roman Catholic Church was paid by the State funds? But they were asked, how could men who were opposed to the Roman Catholic doctrines go against their consciences? To that he would answer, that he could not see how any man's conscience could fairly object to 28,000 l., and have no qualm at 8,000 l. or 9,000 l. Now, as to the permauency of the grant, he would ask, would it have been possible for any Minister to stop it, without assigning a reason, out of mere caprice. No Minister would have dared to do so. Then, with respect to this part of the measure, all the difference was, that the grant was not to be brought annually before Parliament; but if it should be afterwards found that bad principles—that inimical principles—were taught, surely it would be then for Parliament to retrace its steps. If good reasons could be shown for doing so, any measure could be stopped at any time. Therefore, he could not see that there was a question of principle between this and the former measure. A question of political wisdom and expediency there might be. He respected the motives of many who had opposed this grant for many years; but he thought it probable that many of the petitioners against the present measure had never heard of the grant until the present time. He must complain, however, of the opponents of

1341
this measure calling upon the clergy and the bishops to oppose it also on the ground of the sacred vow which they had taken. He trusted that he had as strong a sense of the sacredness of the vow he had taken as any man had; but he did not think it fair or just that he should be denounced, because he did not interpret it in the same way that others did. He had solemnly vowed "with all faithful diligence to banish and drive away all strange and erroneous doctrines which were contrary to God's word." But there were different ways of driving out strange doctrines. How was he to drive them out? By secular coercion, by penal laws, by the bayonet? Was the religion of Him, who forbade his followers to draw the sword in his defence, to be supported by those means? If they were, he would sooner renounce the office he held, he would sooner renounce his profession—nay, he would renounce his religion, if it taught such a course, and draw his sustenance, if necessary, from the humblest manual toil. How were they to drive out such doctrine? Was it in the manner that had been adopted by Ferdinand and Isabella in Spain, by driving away its professors. He would drive away strange and erroneous doctrine from his own Church—he would oppose those who would introduce strange doctrine into the Established Church. With all due respect to the right rev. body of which he was a member, he trusted he might say that no one could more assiduously and zealously exert himself than he had done to drive out what appeared to him to be strange doctrines from the Church. He had wished properly to respect and tolerate others who differed from him, and over whom he claimed no jurisdiction; but those who called for his reprobation and censure were they who appeared to advocate doctrines inconsistent with the Church, and who held the principles of one Church, and the emoluments of another. As for those who were not of his own communion, he claimed no authority over them, as he said before; but he had written, and spoken, and published, he trusted in the spirit of meekness and gentleness, and of Christian candour and frankness, his opinions of their tenets; and he was happy to say, that with many of those he lived on terms of personal friendship; and though they did not agree with him, they felt no resentment at his having, as the Apostle says, and he hoped
1342
in the spirit of the Apostle, "in meekness instructed those that opposed themselves." The only other question which remained was not a question of principle, but of (he must speak the word) expediency. He knew it was an awful sounding word. It had been rung in their ears for thirteen years past; and it always appeared to be a word of ill omen. But if it was allowable for them to abstain from enforcing their own religion on others, and to set apart some portion of the public money towards the education of those who were not of the same persuasion as themselves—towards giving them the best education they could receive—if it was allowable, not as a question of absolute right or principle, then it must be one of expediency. He wished, in the first place, to separate it from a question with which it had been confounded. He heard a great deal of the influences and impropriety, and ungodliness of giving money to support what they believed to be error. He believed the word "giving" or "granting" money confused the minds of many men. But it was not a question of giving; the money was not theirs to give, it belonged to the nation. He meant that the money was not theirs as Protestants. Even if a man of known liberality and bountiful munificence were called upon to contribute to a Roman Catholic chapel, and declined to do so because he conscientiously objected to maintain or to promote that which he considered to be error, whether justified or not justified in so declining, he (the Archbishop of Dublin) would not say—still he would be justified in supporting this measure; because in the one case it was his own money he was called upon to contribute, and in the other the money was the money of the nation. They might talk as they pleased of a Protestant nation; but there were 6,000,000 of Roman Catholics in the country, whom it would be vain to tell that they were no part of the nation, and who did contribute out of their own purses to the national funds. The money being the money of the nation, it was for the Legislature to consider how it could be best laid out for the benefit of the nation. He was not saying that every claim that was advanced should be acceded to. But this was not a claim upon their private purses, nor upon Protestant funds; but it was a claim upon the funds of the nation, of which the claimants were a portion, and upon whose property they had a claim. With respect to considerations of expediency, he must pro-

1343
test against the outcry that was raised against that word. It was commonly asserted that expediency was opposed to principle. It was said that they were going upon suggestions of expediency. He for one was content to take that responsibility upon himself. He professed himself to be a votary of expediency; and he did not see what business any one had in that House who was not one. He did not mean personal expediency—or the expediency of a class or an interest, an expediency which would cause those belonging to any interest to think of nothing but themselves; but another expediency, which could not be called ungodly, for it was contained in the prayer of the Church for the Houses of Parliament, that the Lord "would be pleased to direct and prosper all their consultations for the safety, honour, and welfare of the Sovereign and her dominions, that all things might be so ordered and settled by their endeavours upon the surest foundation." If that was not political expediency, he did not know what it was. It was said by those who brought forward this cry of expediency, that expediency might be opposed to principle and duty; but be maintained that expediency could not be opposed to principle and duty. It was a question of expediency in what branch of trade a man might choose to invest his capital; but it could not be a question of expediency as to whether a man should be dishonest or not. If any man supposed that expediency and duty might be at variance, he should wish to hear his proofs. He should be glad if those who condemned expediency, and asserted that it frequently drew men from the path of duty, would say what they really meant. He held such expediency in abhorrence, for it was a false expediency, a pretended expediency. He could not place any confidence in the man who would declaim against virtue, while in fact, he meant only the simulation of it, false virtue, hypocrisy; nor in the man who condemned the use of coin, meaning only counterfeit coin. That which bore only the semblance and pretence of expediency was not the expediency which he supported. Following out, then, the course of real and true expediency, although they might be unable to remedy the greatest evils under which Ireland laboured, they might introduce some amel oration by improving the system of education, by giving more learning, more literature, better
1344
science, greater taste, and more gentlemanlike habits to those who were to teach 6,000,000 of their fellow subjects, and who were Roman Catholics, and would continue so in spite of legislation and penal laws. An argument had been advanced, not so much in that House as in various papers and pamphlets, to the effect that this measure was not worthy of support, nor likely to accomplish any good in Ireland, because the agitators of that country treated it with scorn and ingratitude, and did all they could to render it unpopular. The speeches made in opposition to it by some of the more active and notorious agitators in Ireland, were adduced as proofs that the people of Ireland, so far from receiving the proffered extension with gratitude or satisfaction, scorned and rejected it; and it was therefore at once set down that the measure would be as inefficient in practice as it was said to be objectionable in principle. Now, upon his mind, the speeches in question produced a very different effect—knowing, as he did, perfectly well, that any measure which was likely to tend to the pacification of Ireland, would be distasteful to those who made a trade of agitation—whose business it was to keep Ireland in a ferment; and would meet with their bitterest hostility. Persons not so well acquainted with Ireland as he was, might and did entertain a notion that the clamours, which, from their louder noise, must have reached their ears, were necessarily the voice of the whole Irish people. So long as a handful of men in Ireland were disposed for agitation, they would always find an agitator, and that agitator would always shout forth that he was the people of Ireland; but it did not at all follow that such was the case. Burke, referring to some noisy politicians, some brawling clamourers of his own time, who assumed to be the spokesmen of the whole nation, said, you might as well talk of the chirruping of a party of grasshoppers on a sunny bank as representing the voice of all the inhabitants of the field, when the burly oxen who were grazing over its broad surface were tranquilly silent. As little were the noisy politicians, the clamorous agitators of Ireland, entitled to call themselves her spokesmen, when they scorned and rejected, on the alleged behalf of her people, a measure calculated to do them so much good—a measure that was the more inestimable in reality, because it

1345
was denied to be so by men who for their own profit dealt in the trade of agitation.
Lord De Rosbriefly spoke in favour of the measure. He thanked the most rev. Prelate for having called back the attention of the House to the question for consideration. He and another noble Lord had heard the able and pious head of the College of Maynooth declare that he had been, and was still, opposed to the cause of Repeal. So much for the charge of disloyalty against it. And he could appeal to a noble relative as to the fact that the influence of the institution was exercised in the support and promotion of charitable purposes. If heretofore the students of that College were thought not to manifest much gratitude to the Government, it should be recollected how poorly they were provided for. His prayer was that all who called themselves Christians might be led and knit together in the bonds of peace; and believing that this measure was calculated to cement that bond of peace, he had great pleasure in giving it his cordial support.
The Bishop of Exeter and the Earl of Clancarty both rose to address the House; the noble Earl gave way, in deference to the apparent wish of the House.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, that if anything could add to the unwillingness with which he interposed between the noble Earl and this House, it would be the notion that he had been called up immediately to answer — he presumed — the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Dublin). On that supposition, however, he readily yielded to the call which had been made upon him; though, when he said this, he hoped the noble Lord who had just sat down would not imagine that he had failed in attention to his observations. He could assure that noble Lord that he was much struck with a portion of his very short speech, for it confirmed observations he had before heard. This House seemed to him totally to disregard the merits of the institution at Maynooth. It was not a national institution. It had been regarded as if it were an institution established by the State, at the expense and at the mere motion of the State; whereas it was nothing more than an institution which had been left upon the hands of the State by those who, in the first instance, had undertaken to provide for its maintenance. The document that
1346
had been laid before their Lordships under the title of a "Memorial from the Trustees of the College of Maynooth," kept out of sight altogether the real origin of the institution. The memorial stated, that the College was founded by the Government with the intention of educating priests for the Roman Catholic population of Ireland. He begged to say that that was a total mistake—he would not say misrepresentation; but he was surprised that these reverend persons had not better records of the history of the institution. He held in his hand a copy of the document by which the College of Maynooth was originated, signed by Dr. Troy, Archbishop of Dublin, and addressed to the Earl of Westmorland, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in 1794. This document was an earnest petition to the Government of the day, setting forth that, under the laws formerly existing, the memorialists were obliged to resort to foreign countries, and particularly to France, to obtain an education for their priesthood; that they had established several valuable institutions, in which 400 persons were constantly maintained; but that in the anarchy then prevalent in France, those establishments had been destroyed; and they entreated the Government to allow them and their friends to institute and endow a College in Ireland. With this request the Government of that day complied. The memorialists said, they were prepared to establish proper places for the education of youth for clerical duties, if, as they had been advised by counsel was necessary, His Majesty's Royal License were granted to them, to enable them legally to secure the funds by which they were endowed. By the advice of the Lord Lieutenant, who went further even than the petitioners requested, an Act of Parliament was passed, enabling the Trustees, all of whom, except the great law officers of the State, were Roman Catholics, to receive donations, and to endow and institute the College of Maynooth. But the Government went still further, and said," We will assist you by a grant of 10,000 l. towards the 30,000 l. required for the purpose, the rest being made up, as promised in the Memorial, by donations from the Roman Catholics themselves." For some years the Parliament continued to sanction a grant in aid of the institution; but in 1799, they refused to do so. The grant, however, was afterwards continued, until it was at last

1347
found that the Roman Catholics of Ireland had ceased to contribute to the support of this institution. This was the history of that dilapidation which had excited the shame of some noble Lords. The noble Earl who was recently Secretary for Ireland (the Earl of St. Germans), had said that he blushed when he witnessed the dilapidated condition of the College of Maynooth. He (the Bishop of Exeter) thought the noble Lord might rather have blushed at the conduct of the Roman Catholic gentry, who had thus permitted their own institution to fall into ruin. This institution—the sacrifice of which, it was said, would deeply wound the feelings of all the Roman Catholics of Ireland—had not obtained a portion of their sympathy for the last twenty years. Up to 1814, with the exception of an estate which now produced about 5,000 l. a year, the whole amount of donations to the College did not seem to have amounted to 5,000 l. annually: since 1814, not a groat! He thought, therefore, it must be inferred that the Roman Catholics of Ireland had a very bad opinion of this institution—that they did not think it was calculated to effect the objects for which it was established. He thought these facts clearly disproved the charge of parsimony with regard to this institution which had been made against Parliament: in fact, it appeared to him that successive Governments had regarded the grant to Maynooth as a vote in favour of a chance institution. The noble Earl the late Secretary for Ireland, who spoke last night, had said that this Bill did nothing more than supply a technical defect in the original Act—the object of the original measure being to make the institution perpetual, to constitute it a corporation; and this would have been done, according to the noble Earl, but for the circumstance of some technical defect. The noble Earl was, however, labouring under a total misapprehension in fancying that the intention of the framers of the original Bill was to render the establishment permanent; for it did not contain a word that showed any desire to make the Trustees a corporation. But the next Act, to amend the original measure, effectually excluded the notion of incorporation; for it enabled the Trustees to sue and be sued by their secretary. They were told that the adoption of the present measure would prevent the annual discussion of this ques-
1348
tion. What was the fact? There had, now and then, been a discussion in the other House on this subject, but he believed there had never been an adjourned debate; and his conviction was, that if all those discussions on the Maynooth grant had been condensed into one debate, they would not have occupied half the time that had been consumed in any day's discussion on this Bill in either House of Parliament. It was five or six years since any discussion had taken place in the other House on this subject, except upon the annual vote. In 1840, the present Prime Minister of this country said, that it was the duty of Parliament to inquire into the condition of Maynooth, and the doctrines taught in that institution. It was proposed, by the Bill now before their Lordships, that an annual visitation of the College should be established, and that such visitation should take place as often as the Lord Lieutenant might think fit. But what was to be the nature of this visitation? It was asserted that intolerant and antisocial doctrines were constantly inculcated at Maynooth; and were they to be told that a system of visitation was efficient, when the visitors were precluded from making the slightest inquiry as to the doctrines taught in the College? As he had before said, the Roman Catholics of Ireland had deserted this, their own institution. It might be asked, why was this? It could not be from poverty. They had been told, that Roman Catholics in Ireland were attaining to great wealth; and he was glad that such was the case. Were they backward, then, in contributing to religious objects? He would not speak of the O'Connell rent, or anything of that kind; but he might state, that for the last twelve years the Roman Catholics of Ireland had been contributing 6,000 l. or 7,000 l. a year to the Institution for the Propagation of the Faith at Lyons. This being the case, he would certainly have thought that if the Roman Catholics of Ireland entertained any desire to maintain the College of Maynooth, they would not have permitted those who were designed to be the instructors of the people of their faith to be subjected to such disgraceful and inconvenient accommodation as had been represented to exist at Maynooth. But what were the objects of this Bill? There was to be a visitation; but the inquiries of the visitors must be confined to the

1349
merest trifles, such, for instance, as the treatment received by the students from the professors. They had heard that, though there was now a triennial visitation, the visitors did nothing; and why? Because they had nothing to do. What, he would ask, was the great want of Ireland with respect to the clergy who were to instruct the Roman Catholic population? They required a set of men who would remind those over whom they were placed of their duty to God and to their country—who would remind them that their first duty to their country was to live in peace, to cultivate peace; and who would remember that it was their own duty to set an example of that peaceful conduct. They were told that great allowances ought to be made for the priests educated at Maynooth, inasmuch as they belonged to the people, and must be expected to share the feelings and passions of the people. He was ready to make all due allowance on this point; but the clergy whose duty it was to instruct a tumultuous, or it might be a rebellious population, ought not to take their character from the people, but ought to endeavour, by God's blessing, to communicate to them feelings of Christian peace and charity. How, then, were the clergy of Ireland to be educated in order to fit them for this situation? Surely not by shutting up 500 of them together, as proposed by this Bill, in a monastic institution, leading lives of total seclusion, and utter hardship and privation, of utter serfism; debarred, not merely from all refined intercourse with society, but actually kept sternly within the narrow limits of their own establishment; not permitted, for the seven years of their servitude at Maynooth to leave the place but occasionally, for a short space, in the vacations; and at all other times not allowed to quit the walls for a country walk, nor to walk out at all in their own boundaries, but in the presence of a dean, whom they are forbidden to remove themselves from the sight of under penalty of expulsion. Surely this state of slavery was not adapted to fit them for the office which they were destined to fill. And if the day which makes the slave robs him of half his virtue, what quantity of the remaining half would survive the day which turned the slave into a despot? Ay, a despot; for the hope of one day becoming a despot was the great object which reconciled these young men to all the sufferings
1350
of their seven years' slavery. At the end of that period they saw before them all the triumphs of spiritual despotism, when they should go forth among the people as the representatives of God—as the representatives—not as the ministers—of God; such was the character which their books taught them, after the usual probation, they were to possess: Vices gerere Dei. How great was the contrast between the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland, and the members of the same body in England! Here it was well known to all that the Roman Catholic clergy among us were eminently fitted, by their habits, acquirements, manners, and feelings, to fill the sacred character. He had himself had great gratification, in the course of his life, in making the acquaintance of several Roman Catholic clergymen, and he had never known one who was not remarkable for meekness, mildness, and amenity of character. How was this occasioned? By their living, during the period of their education, in a manner exactly opposite to that in which under this Bill the Irish Roman Catholic priests were brought up. He believed that the young men intended for the ministry of the Roman Catholic Church in England were brought up in the society of those intended for other professions, and even during the period of their instruction for the ministry they enjoyed considerable intercourse with such persons. This, he was convinced, accounted for the great difference in the characters of the Roman Catholic priests of England and of Ireland. It had frequently been stated that the lowest class of the people alone were educated for the Catholic priesthood in Ireland. He believed, on the best possible testimony—the evidence taken before the Commissioners in 1826—that that statement was wholly unfounded. He believed it repeatedly occurred in the evidence, that many of the gentry send, or did send, their sons to that College; but it was the opulent merchants, and the most respectable farmers and tradesmen of great respectability, whose sons formed the chief body of young men preparing for the Roman Catholic priesthood. Then, he asked, was this measure likely to improve the College in that respect? So far from it, that it tended to take away the security they now had: for that security, of the education not being merely eleemosynary, was a very great benefit—it

1351
insured a superior class of young men for the ministry in Ireland. If it had failed in that respect, it must have failed from the degrading character of the institution; most certainly it ought not to be otherwise; for they could not doubt that the gentry of Ireland must be as eager to give their sons to religion as the gentry of this country: and he repeated, that if there was that reluctance on the part of the gentry of Ireland to send their sons to Maynooth, it must be because the education was degrading—different from what it was in England. By the present Bill the total expense of all the 250 young men, divinity students, was to be defrayed by the country. Then, who were to appoint them? The Roman Catholic bishops of Ireland. Would not the result of this measure then be, to give to the Roman Catholic bishops influence of the most efficient kind in naming the provision of not fewer than 250 young men? But that was not all; as for every place to be filled up there would be ten expectants. Upon all constitutional grounds patronage of that kind should be in the Crown. But the Crown, in giving that enormous power of the entire support of these young men at Maynooth, ought to have in its hands the power of selecting them; and it was peculiarly important in Ireland that that should be the case, for the Crown wanted to be connected with the people of that country by benefits felt by them. If, however, that were thought to be giving too much power to the Crown, another course might be adopted—that of giving these situations on competition. Let the Crown have the power of nominating four times the number of young men necessary to supply the vacancies, and let them be examined publicly in Dublin by the Roman Catholic bishops, or persons appointed by them; and let the candidate who was the best qualified for admission be the successful one. With such an examination, they would have well-conditioned persons appointed to Maynooth, and there would be some gratitude to the Crown: but if the Roman Catholic bishops were to supply the vacancies, that gratitude would go, not to the Crown, but to the bishops. That might be made the means of great benefit to Ireland, but certainly not if they continued the institution of Maynooth in its present monastic state. As to the expense of the measure, it was beneath the
1352
country to entertain it for a moment. But he should wish to see, instead of the College of Maynooth, four proper places of good education, connected, if they would, with the measure now before the House of Commons. Let there be appended to each of those three or four places proposed by that Bill, a special place of education for the Roman Catholic clergy, and let them be made places of liberal education. Let there be, if they would, that due discipline which there ought to be over the clerical students; but let them have the same examination with the gentry, as in this country. He knew nothing in the Irish character that was incompatible with that object. Now, the right rev. Prelate who had spoken on the previous evening with so much ability, had been reproached for failing to point out any remedy for the evils of Ireland. He must say it was not merely unfair, but unconstitutional, to call on the right rev. Prelate to do so. He was not the Minister of the country; he was not responsible for the Government. He (the Bishop of Exeter) was sure, however, that if this Government went out upon this measure, the noble Lords opposite could not come in, for in fact they were all of the same way of thinking on this question; but of all Governments that was the worst that could not carry those measures which it thought best. He thought that the present Government, after what had been stated, could not deny the objections to this measure. They were evident, they lay on the surface, and he must say, that if they perpetuated such an institution as that of Maynooth, they were perpetuating a curse upon Ireland. Even without immediately considering those very important particulars which were brought to their attention by the noble Earl who moved the Amendment, and the noble Duke who supported it, he should not have entered into that part of the question, but for what was stated on the previous evening by a noble Lord for whom he had a very high respect, founded upon his conviction and experience of the honourable and can did manner in which that noble Lord (Lord Beaumont) performed his duty in that House. More than once had he had occasion to congratulate that House that the measure of 1829 had brought with it some compensation in giving to them the benefit of so able and high-minded a coadjutor. The noble Lord, in referring to the statement

1353
of the noble Earl as to the conferences of the Roman Catholic priests, said the questions mentioned by the noble Earl were put forth in a speculative age of the Church, when there was great liberty of discussion; but he (the Bishop of Exeter) had not read history as the noble Lord, if he spoke of that as a speculative age in which there was such liberty of discussion. He was, however, bound to say, that he had the best and plainest evidence of the accuracy of the noble Earl's statement respecting those conferences. What was the nature of them? He held in his hand the Statutes for the province of Dublin published by order of the right rev. Dr. Murray. Here was one. It was a special direction to be visited by suspension ipso facto if not obeyed, that every priest should have with him some work of moral theology, in which he should very often, and if possible every day, read at least one chapter or one title with attention (a title was the heading of a series of chapters), in order that by the assistance of that frequent reading they might be better able to direct the consciences of the people committed to their charge. That reading was to prepare them for the conferences at which they were to be instructed for the confessional. Now, what were the questions proposed at those conferences? "Are infidels to be allowed to join themselves to those born of the faithful? May the faithful communicate with infidels? Is it lawful to tolerate heresy? What are the punishments to be decreed for those who are affected with heresy?" Those were the subjects of conference in 1832, in order that the priests who considered them in conference might be the better able to instruct their people. Were they to be told that the questions were put, but that there were no answers? Why, what answer could be given to that question, "What are the punishments decreed against heretics?" They were told to follow the authority of Dens. It was said, that that meant they were only to take the order of their questions from Dens. But, he would put it to any scholar whether it was possible for him so to construe it? There could be no doubt they were to follow the authority of Dens; but what were the answers Dens gave? They were the punishment not merely of excommunication, but the confiscation of goods, imprisonment ay, and death. It might be said, that those were only
1354
the private opinions of Dens; but there could be no doubt that the canon law did inflict death by burning, for heresy, and that that was the canon law at the present moment. But how to the people of reland could such a doctrine be safely pre ched in their confessionals by the priests, and, if it could not, why was it made the subject of conference in the instruction of priests for the confessional? Those were tremendous considerations; but the question was not whether they were horrible, but whether they were true. They might say that that had no special connexion with Maynooth. He thought it had; for if they would take the trouble to look at the regulations of Maynooth, they would find that the Dunboyne students were educated for the special purpose of heading these conferences; but, even if it were not so, there was in the education at Maynooth enough to make them tremble at the persecuting doctrines taught there. The noble Earl had referred to the works of Maldonatus. It was frightful to contemplate the doctrines laid down in his works, and yet he was the favourite commentator on the Gospels referred to at Maynooth. He would only just refer to one or two of his doctrines. On that beautiful text, Luke ix., v. 55, "Ye know not what spirit ye are of," Maldonatus said—
"This does not seem to me to be properly spoken of the gospel dispensation at large, but only of Christ, who, Almighty as he was, and deserving of his vengeance as men were, yet 'came not,' as he says immediately afterwards, 'to destroy men's lives, but to save them.' He would not force his gospel on the world by arms, but chose rather to insinuate it by meekness, teaching, miracles. But now, as often as the occasion demands, religion must be defended, and preserved by the sword from the earth, and by fire from heaven. We must slay the Turks who are invading the Church,—we must burn heretics as traitors and deserters!"
That was taken from the Catechism for the Parochial Clergy. But he would read another passage:—On Matthew, v. 13, "If the salt have lost its savour," he said—
"What Ezekiel says of the vine, our Lord here says of salt. The meaning of both is the same, that degenerate teachers, as heretics above all others, are good for nothing but to be punished, to be trodden under foot, to be burned with fire."
Now he had lately had a communication

1355
with a gentleman educated at Maynooth, who had authorized him to say that, in case their Lordships should agree to the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl, he was ready to come forward and state what was the sort of instruction he had received at Maynooth. He (the Bishop of Exeter) asked him, by letter, whether any especial caution was given to the young men there respecting these persecuting doctrines; and the answer was—
"I do not recollect any such caution having been given. I do recollect that, in vindicating the Council of Constance for their mode of dealing with John Huss, the professor claimed for the Church the corporal punishment of heretics—which, however, he left to the temporal power."
This person had high credentials to his good character. With respect to the loyalty inculcated at Maynooth, he said—
"I never knew the professors to encourage or discourage feelings of loyalty. They seemed to me to avoid the subject. They certainly do not encourage charitable feelings towards the Protestants. I once heard the professor from the chair declare that heretics could not enter into the kingdom of Heaven, and that Protestants must be regarded as heretics in places where they could not have the plea of ignorance."
Dr. M'Hale, he (the Bishop of Exeter) considered a good specimen of one imbued with the spirit of Maynooth, where he was bred, and of which college he was President for eleven years; and Dr. M'Hale, it came out in evidence before a Committee of their Lordships' House, on the occasion of some Roman Catholics having become converts to Protestantism near Achill, forbade their Roman Catholic neighbours from speaking to those who had been so converted. It also appeared from that evidence that a priest named Hughes had advised his parishioners to use pitchforks and put into bogholes any one who approached their dwellings in order to teach the Scriptures or distribute tracts. Now, he (the Bishop of Exeter) most earnestly trusted they should get rid of that spirit in Ireland soon. As indicating the animus of the Church of Rome, and the effect of the canonical law, he might mention that in 1815 the Belgian bishops had addressed their then King on his declaring his intention to confirm to the Roman Catholic Church its privileges to this effect: — They affirmed that to confirm to the Roman Catholic Church its
1356
privileges was inconsistent with another article of the Constitution, which gave equal laws to all the Belgians; for that the ancient canonical law was incompatible with liberty of conscience, and that the Roman Catholic Church would therefore be opposed to the laws of the State. The King persisted, and gave equal laws to his subjects; the bishops persisted also, and twenty years afterwards drove him from the throne. The Pope, in 1832, in an encyclical letter, denounced the doctrine of liberty of conscience as a pestilential error. But what had been the practical effect of the sanguinary instructions that were given to the priests? He had a document to show this proceeding, not from any clergyman, but from a very high functionary in Ireland, who was well known to be one of the most liberal lawyers in Ireland and an ornament to the bench, he meant Mr. Baron Richards. At an assizes at Castlebar, in 1838, that learned judge tried a woman for homicide, and passed sentence on her, and in doing so observed—
"I cannot but grieve over the depraved character of a people who can be guilty of the many cases of this description which have come before me this assizes, and several of these homicides have occurred as the parties were returning from the mass-house. I must here say, I cannot but think that the minds of the people of this country are as open to instruction as those of any other, and if the proper and due precepts were impressed upon them they could be restrained from the violence and bloodshed which so greatly disgrace this country. I am certain that the people could be humanized; and, without any thing like reproach, I do say, that a heavy responsibility rests on those who meet these people in the house of God—I mean the spiritual instructors of the people, whose duty it is to keep them from violence and murder—and I think that could be done by proper exertion and persuasion. Many of the rev. gentlemen I allude to are excellent men, and for them I have a high respect; but in the discharge of my duty I must say that I conceive the people of this country as susceptible of receiving benefit from the instruction their pastors should bestow as the people of any other. It is by the efforts of their clergymen more than by law that the people can be humanized and rendered amenable to the voice of justice and peace. Feeling that such is the case, it strikes me with amazement that the people should still exhibit such savage conduct. Very many cases of murder that have come before me were committed on the return of those concerned from the house of God, and that murderous habit I cannot reconcile with the mo-

1357
ral and religious instruction that ought to be unceasingly impressed upon the people."
It was right that their Lordships should know what were the doctrines that were actually taught at Maynooth. The right rev. Prelate here read a passage from the evidence of Dr. M'Hale before the Committee of the House of Lords in 1826:—
"When I say that the Church has the power of dispensing from oaths, I understand that the Church is then the interpreter, in some measure, of the Divine will. In casuistry the shades between right and wrong may be sometimes so indistinct as not to be seen by an ordinary eye; then the Church, being the interpreter of the Divine law, only decides what seems best in the particular case. 'We find it laid down in the class-book, p. 145, that the following are just causes of dispensation in those cases—viz., 1st, the honour of God; 2nd, the utility of the Church; 3rd, the common good of the republic; 4th, the common good of society. Who is to be the judge of what 'the utility of the Church' may require? The superiors of the Church.' If there are paramount obligations founded on natural law, or on the Divine law, and which are clearly impressed on every mind, then we never entertain the question of dispensation, because we know that neither bishop, nor Pope, nor any power on earth, whatever utility could be derived to the Church, can attempt to release a person from an oath confirming these obligations. If the Pope, from a mistaken zeal for the Church (as there have been such instances), should attempt to release subjects from their oath of allegiance, that is one of the cases in which every person may judge for himself that such dispensation is invalid. 'There are certain great landmarks: the duties we owe to kings, sovereigns, persons of subordinate condition, parents, &c., but such is the complexity of human affairs, and such is often the conflicting variety of duties, that it will be impossible to determine every case with certainty. If all cases were determined we should have no necessity for tribunals, either ecclesiastical or civil.' (285.) 'Who is to decide in doubtful cases?—If it was a perplexed case, it will be left to the superior; but if it be a clear case, then every man's own reason can judge.'"
In 1800, Pius VII. acceded to the Popedom, and on that event, on the 14th of March, wrote to Louis XVIII., acknowledging him as the successor of St. Louis and the legitimate Sovereign of France. Louis accordingly sent Cardinal Maury ambassador to Rome. In March, 1800, it would be remembered, the affairs of the republic were at the lowest ebb. Bonaparte was shut up in Egypt with his army, and there was a great prospect of
1358
the speedy return of Louis to the throne of his ancestors. But, in 1801, the battle of Marengo took place, which put Bonaparte in possession of the whole of Italy; and the Pope having entered into a concordat with Bonaparte, published it, and thereby absolved all Frenchmen from their allegiance to their legitimate sovereign, and consented to the oath by which all parish priests and bishops swear that they will bear true allegiance to Bonaparte, and reveal all conspiracies against his government. This was an instance to show that the deposing power was still claimed and acted on by the Pope. He would add a proof of what amounted to a direct teaching of perjury. In the book called De Pœnitentiâ, pp. 285, 286, it was stated that—
"If a priest be interrogated by the magistrate on matters which have come to his knowledge from confession only, he ought to answer that he knows them not—ay, and to swear that he knows them not, without any danger of hereby swearing falsely. The reason is, according to Estius, because a man neither lies nor equivocates who speaks to the mind of him who asks, and so brings forward nothing but truth. And such is the position of the priest in the aforesaid case; for the judge does not put the question to him of what he knows in the way of confession, as representing God (quatenus Dei vices agit), but what he may know as man (quatenus homo), and therefore out of confession. To Estius all divines assent in this. But if the judge press him, and further demand whether he knew such or such a thing from confession, some authors say that the priest may give the same answer, that he knows nothing of the matter on which he is interrogated—because, say they, whatever be the will of the judge, he cannot interrogate the priest, except as man. But the far more common opinion, and that which must be followed in practice, is, that in such a circumstance the confessor must say that he can give no answer to the question: the reason is,"—not because the other answer would be false, but—"because this answer only consults for the sacredness of the seal, be the case what it may, and at the same time for men's reverence for the sacrament. For it may have been that the penitent has already declared to the judge that he has committed the crime which had been the subject of confession, and then what would the judge think of the denial of the confessor, which the penitent himself has proved to be false? Again, if the crime should be proved by other evidence, and the confessor had affirmed with an oath that he had heard nothing of it in the sacred tribunal of confession, would he not give reason to conjecture that a full confession had not been made by the penitent?

1359
Therefore, in the case supposed, the only thing which is fit for the confessor to do, is to give an evasive answer, or to hold his tongue, whatever be the threatened consequence, even though it be death."
If that were not directly instructing the clergy in perjury he was not able to understand what was meant. If the Government proposed to perpetuate and take into the bosom of the State this institution—if they were willing to grant this special favour to a perjury-teaching College—let the responsibility rest upon them. But unless it could be shown that this teaching of Maynooth was as conducive to truth, justice, and honesty, as he believed he had shown it to be in direct contradiction to them, he did trust, that whatever had been the previous Resolution of their Lordships with regard to their votes, if he had been the humble means of opening their eyes to the iniquities of the system there pursued, a majority of their Lordships would act upon their conviction, and say "Not content" to the Motion for the second reading of the Bill.
Lord Broughamsaid, that in addressing their Lordships upon this now almost exhausted subject, he wished, in the first place, to point out the remarkable discrepancy between the line of argument taken by the right rev. Prelate who had so ably addressed their Lordships, and the arguments previously addressed to their Lordships by every one of the noble Lords who had before spoken on the same side of the question; a discrepancy so signal, that he could not help felicitating his noble Friends opposite, and his two noble Friends who occupied the cross benches, and wishing them joy of the support which their contention had met with from the right rev. Prelate. For, what was their ground for opposing the grant? It was, that this was an institution for the propagation of idolatry — superstitious and abominable doctrines—all that was most erroneous in creed and pernicious in practice—all that the State should put down, and the ministers of religion discountenance—and that the Government ought not to give its countenance to the endowment of a College for teaching Roman Catholic priests, who would disseminate those errors and perpetuate those principles. Though he thought that those objections were wrong, and that the ground of the opposition of his noble Friends was unimportant, they
1360
were at least consistent, and their argument was to be understood. But what said the right rev. Prelate? "I object," said the right rev. Prelate, "to this particular College of Maynooth. I find fault with it in its principle and in its detail; but let there be a good establishment upon the same principle, and then found four colleges, at each of which there may be taught not only secular learning, not only the sciences and letters, to lay pupils; but to each of those Colleges," says the right rev. Prelate, "there shall be added an ecclesiastical seminary for the express purpose of teaching Roman Catholic priests, and qualifying them to go forth on their Papist mission." There was, however—to use a theological phrase—a backsliding in the right rev. Prelate's observations; for, however much he differed from his noble Friend in the announcement of principle, in the manner in which he followed it up he was equally discrepant with himself. The right rev. Prelate said, here was a great change proposed by this Bill; here was the endowment, for the first time, of a College that had never been endowed before; and that was the chief argument upon which the other side rested. The right rev. Prelate said, that all that the State had hitherto done was—on the representation of the whole body of the Irish people—not to endow, but to give the Catholics an opportunity of endowing the seminary themselves. It was rather, according to the right rev. Prelate, the object to found an endowable than an endowed College. But how did that statement tally with the fact? In the year 1795, the Act the 35th Geo. III. was passed. Did that Act, or did it not, endow the seminary? He said it did, most distinctly and clearly. It appointed Trustees, to whom it confided all the powers of a corporate body, and, in all but the use of the word corporation, which was accidentally omitted, it made a corporation of those trusts; and so far from its having been intended that the institution should depend on Roman Catholics for its maintenance, in that very year was the first grant of the State for its support made. Then came the Act of 1800. Certain things had been omitted in the first Act, and it was found necessary to add those powers which were found wanting to carry its objects into effect; and at the same time a new system of visitation was founded. The Act of the 48th of Geo. III. followed next; and that Act gave all those

1361
powers which the previous Acts, the 35th and 40th of the same reign, had left wanting; but it still omitted the terms "corporation" and "corporate body:" and that omission had occasioned a doubt whether the Trustees could take leases as a corporate body, or only for themselves as individuals. And when they heard of the clamour which had been excited in consequence of the omission of this main word—when they found that omission was sufficient to raise a flame throughout England, Ireland, and Scotland—they might indeed say that words were things. But what were the words of the 48th of George III.? "Whereas," said the preamble of that Act, "a seminary has been established, maintained, and endowed, for the education"—the exclusive education was the word—"for educating exclusively persons professing the Roman Catholic religion: be it therefore enacted." To say that endowment was never heard of before, and that it was reserved for the year 1845 to speak for the first time of the endowment of Maynooth, was a mockery of the recollection of their Lordships, or of their senses in reading the words of that Statute. But who was the Sovereign under whose government the last of those three Acts passed? George the Third: that Sovereign, as was well known, was no great enemy to the Protestant Establishment, nor was he any great admirer of the Roman Catholic faith; and he would venture to say, of all persons in England, no one was more conscientiously and zealously attached to the religion of his ancestors, their firm adherence to which had been the ground for selecting that illustrious family to fill the Throne of these realms. George III. was the Prince to whom those Acts were recommended, which afterwards passed the Irish and the English Houses of Parliament. But who was the Minister by whose advice the 48th of that King was passed? That Minister was neither more nor less than Mr. Perceval, of Protestant memory; a man of truly anti-Catholic prejudices, if he might so speak, of what were in his case sincere and conscientious opinions, in support of which he was ready to make any sacrifice, not of office merely, but of life. Mr. Perceval's attention was called to the subject; and it could not be supposed that he was indifferent to the errors of the Catholic religion, for this was the very year after he had displaced the Ministry of Lord Grenville and Lord Grey, on the ground
1362
of their difference with the Sovereign upon Catholic Emancipation. This strenuous advocate of Protestantism—this enemy of the Catholic system, the Catholic creed, and the Catholic religion—was the Minister under whom this Act was passed, which, in repeating the two former Statutes, expressly stated that the seminary was endowed. He (Lord Brougham) thought that a seminary for the education of a spiritual class of men, to the exclusion of laymen, was to be lamented, and he regretted the change that was made in that respect in the constitution of Maynooth; but it had been made before Mr. Perceval's time. From the time of the passing of the first Act, with the exception of one year, he believed in consequence of the agitation then existing in Ireland, the grant in support of this seminary had been made every year since. But, said the right rev. Prelate, that grant is only for each year; but was the intention of Parliament less distinct or more doubtful on that account? On the contrary, its being annual stamped it fifty-fold more strongly with the authority of Parliament, and increased fifty-fold the arguments in favour of this measure; and, as the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Dublin) had most justly asked, who was the Minister who would now dare to propose to Parliament the refusal of the annual grant? If this Bill had never been heard of, the grant would have been made every year; it was, in fact, a lease of years renewable for ever; and if no one could doubt that, where, in God's name, was the difference between giving it altogether, once and for all, and giving it every year—between giving it for ever at once, and giving it in a way that was never to end? By giving it at once, they had at least this advantage—they avoided those debates without end in Parliament, which the annual reference to this subject gave rise to; they avoided all that agitation and excitement in the country which they annually witnessed, and those efforts made by men who, it might be said, knew no better, but who, with all charity, he suspected did know a little better than those who were their dupes; they would have, instead of the present annual crop of anti-Maynooth meetings, of religious animosities, of discord raised in each parish and in each family circle—for it extended to the domestic hearth—instead of that, they would have the matter settled, once for all; and there would be a prospect that that agita-

1363
tion and that discord which now existed would be overcome, and that the present storm, by which the whole surface of society was ruffled, would subside into the calm of good feeling and Christian charity. They had, then, the right rev. Prelate telling them of the kind of teaching and the kind of people that were sent forth from Maynooth. The right rev. Prelate said they were treated as slaves when they were there, and that they became despots at the end of seven years. Now, he would wish to say one word of that which ran through the whole of the arguments of the right rev. Prelate and others; and that was, the grievous error of arguing one question when there was another before them. They had been arguing as if the question before them was, if all the evils of Maynooth were to be continued, or to be put down. They had no such choice. They had Maynooth, whether they liked it or not. They had had the endowment for half a century; they could not revoke it; they could not disfranchise Maynooth, and therefore they must continue to have it, with all its bad teaching, and even with its slaves, who were afterwards to become despots. Was it not, then, he asked them in sober seriousness, if they must have slaves who were afterwards to be despots—if it would not be better to have them gentlemen, or something approaching gentlemen, educated liberally, with something of gentlemanlike fashion? — then, he asked them, was it desirable that they should have them in that state which had been described by an English gentleman who had gone over to Ireland, and visited Maynooth? In that description, it was said of Maynooth that an Irish union workhouse was a palace to it; there was to be found in it nothing but lazy squalor, from the dining room to the kitchen; and "why," the writer asked, "should the place be so ruinous and foully dirty?" There was a noble Duke (the Duke of Leinster) who lived near to the place, and who must be aware that the picture was not overcharged. This argument applied to the whole question. Whatever arguments they might use against Maynooth, whatever might be its police, its habits, or its discipline—whether there was a want of education, a perverted education, or a defective education, or whether there were bad priests reared up, or, to use the strong expression of the right rev. Prelate, the students were fitted to be despots by being turned into slaves; whatever the circumstances might
1364
be—and admitting the pictures that had been given of Maynooth to be perfectly true—what was the result? They could not put a stop to Maynooth—they must continue it; and the only question was, how were they to remedy the evil, and how were they to make the mischief cease? Thus, every topic that had been used on the other side gave an additional force to the arguments in favour of this measure. He came, then, to the worst argument of the right rev. Prelate, who said that there was no security whatever for the good government of this institution. His reply was, that they had the best security that was to be got, under the circumstances in which they were placed. The Trustees were to have the power of making by-laws. They might make regulations for their own government, their own police, their own discipline, within certain limits, for regulating the doctrines that were taught. Then there were to be visitors, and they were to have the power of making inquiries. It was no longer to be nominal; and even hitherto, he was aware, it had not been altogether formal, but in some instances effectually used. Why, the right rev. Prelate was ignorant of the history of the institution which he charged with so many defects. The visitatorial power had been formerly exercised—it had been repeatedly exercised by Lord Plunket. At one time, sedition had been said to have been circulated amongst the students; an inquiry was made; expulsions took place, and the remedy was found to be effectual. On one occasion, too, inquiry had been made whether bad doctrines had been taught — whether they were bound by their oaths to refuse to give legal evidence. An inquiry was instituted, and the answer again was that they claimed no exemption—that they were obliged to answer on their oaths, notwithstanding a prior engagement. He now came to speak with respect to a point that it was painful to him to allude to upon any occasion or in any place, particularly because the opinions that he had to express might very possibly be found unpleasing, and be heard with disrelish by some Members of their Lordships' House for whom he entertained an unfeigned respect—the Members of their House who were of the Catholic religion. After all the clamour that had been excited out of doors, after all the attempts that had been made, if not within doors, at least not discountenanced by the course pursued within

1365
doors; not by the reasoning but by the declamation within doors; it became necessary to exempt oneself from the charges thus made; it became necessary to state the preference which he gave to Protestantism over the Catholic faith, which, in his mind, was a grievous error. He did not wish to use a harsh expression; but such was his opinion of that form of worship and that form of faith. No man, he said, in that House, or out of that House, be he ever so loud in the profession of his attachment to the Protestant faith, could surpass him in his opinion as to the errors of the Catholic system; meaning by that, the Romish religion, and the evil tendency of its policy—not of the religion, mind, but of the policy—the policy engrafted on the Catholic religion. He said nothing of its Articles of Faith, for that was not the place in which such sacred points should be discussed; but laying aside its Articles of Faith as being of a purely spiritual nature, and which only concerned the souls of men, which only taught the relations between man and the Supreme Being, and with which no man had a right to interfere; that he said, was a point on which it was not necessary for him to enter. But then, as to doctrines which did not belong to the Catholic faith, which were separate from it, but which had been engrafted upon, which had been introduced into it, by the weight and authority of men who wore mitres, and men who were armed with crosiers, and men who flourished under the sanction of the Pope or Bishop of Rome; — he denied the right of the Popedom to make these introductions, to engraft these things on the original pure faith which had been handed down from the apostolic times. Of these errors, he said, he disapproved. Now here, he said, they had nothing to do with these questions, nor with nine parts out of ten that had been brought forward on the other side, and to support which they had large volumes produced—happily not read; but still they had considerable references made from books of all sorts—from theological books and class books, and he had strong impressions that some of the Fathers even had been quoted. [Laughter—a noble Lord mentioned Thomas Aquinas] No—Thomas Aquinas was not a Father, he was merely a Doctor. He wrote in the thirteenth century, the Fathers in the first four or five centuries. Upon all these arguments and quotations he had a short
1366
observation to make. He said their argument destroyed itself; for supposing these things taught at Maynooth, the question was, would they not put it on a better footing? His noble Friend (Lord Beaumont) was wrong in supposing that all the bad doctrines mentioned were not to be found in these books. The bad doctrines were certainly there; and if the question depended upon that, he should vote for inquiry. The truth, however, was, that they had nothing to do with the question. The things were taught in the Catholic Church; and when he said "Catholic," he meant Roman Catholic Church, for they were all Catholics. The doctrines were to be found in those books which constituted the Corpus Juris Theologici, and, as such, they were taught in Maynooth; but then out of the 100,000 pages in those books, it would be found that the bad doctrines shrunk within one or two pages: and it did not follow that a single line in these were taught as the doctrines of the Roman Catholic religion. But then, he said, don't let them suppose that the Roman Catholic Church was the only Church that had fallen into the grievous error of preaching such doctrines, or that intolerance was confined within the walls of the Catholic Church. All Churches armed with secular power, by an alliance with the State, had fallen into the same error, and all promulgated persecution, though none had carried it so far as the Catholic Church. Even their own Anglican Church, the least persecuting Church, had divines who had written within the last three centuries—not in the thirteenth century, like Thomas Aquinas — but who put forward persecuting doctrines. They must not even say that they were quite free from intolerance at the present moment. What was said four or five times in the year, and what was the place in which it was said,—"This is the Catholic faith, which, unless a man have, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly;" which unless a man faithfully believe, he shall not be saved! Now, where and when were these things said? He need not answer these questions. They were not like the questions proposed at the conferences for discussion, as those very men could answer. If they then found their church anathemas "dealing damnation to all around," if they had found this to be a Catholic formula, which they (Protestants) had not happened to have adopted, he did not doubt but that these quotations from the Athanasian creed would have

1367
been read the last night and that night. Amongst the other quotations that had been presented to them by noble Lords and the right rev. Prelates, sure he was that the Bishop of Cashel would have favoured them with such extracts, although in reading the quotations with which he favoured them, he must have forgotten the minacious parts of the service of which he was so suitable an expounder. Now, who were those who had made the greatest efforts against the Maynooth grant? They were chiefly Dissenters and Wesleyan Methodists. The Wesleyan Methodists were partly Churchmen but mostly Dissenters. There were Presbyterians, Baptists, Anabaptists, and Independents, the most zealous of the whole, he was sorry to perceive. Now he would remind those who would not, extend toleration to the Catholic religion, and who were on this occasion the allies of the right rev. Prelate—that their Church, as the law-established Church, was not merely Protestant—it was the English Episcopal Church—a Church which had the greatest repugnance to Dissenters who did not acknowledge the rule of bishops—a much greater repugnance to them than to the Catholic body who acknowledged bishops. Let the Dissenters remember that when they would carry on a crusade against their Catholic brethren. And were there no persecuting doctrines among the Dissenters? He would quote these doctrines, and he should like to know who it was that preached them? It was John Calvin. Even he, whose name was so venerated by Presbyterians and Anabaptists; they took it as the name of the purest filtration of pellucid and orthodox belief; and he might remark, that no inconsiderable body of their own Episcopal Church were followers of Calvin. He advised, then, those who held to the pure Calvinistic faith—to the discipline of Calvin—that it was not for them to carry on a crusade against Maynooth, because of the works of Thomas Aquinas, and his talking of heretics being removed as tares; when, if he (Lord Brougham) were to select any writer, who did not merely speak of it as a matter of right thus to treat heretics, but who laid it down as a positive duty to exterminate heretics, by burning the body to save the soul: then the one he would name, without hesitation, was John Calvin himself. And what he preached, he supported by act and example. This did not rest on Calvin's precepts; it was not a thing said and then forgotten; but,
1368
in the course of his life he acted on the precept, and by an act of the most atrocious perfidy—by opening letters—he entrapped his victim from Vienna; and having him in Geneva, his victim (Servetus) was accused of Arian or Socinian doctrines, there tried, and after an absolute mockery of a trial, was condemned to death and burned. The same inclination to persecute was exhibited, even by the Pilgrim Fathers, who settled the first colonies in North America. Jared Sparkes, who had written a history of these early settlers in Massachusetts, showed to what an extent they were tainted with the besetting sin of persecution; he mentioned the cases of two sent in chains by the very first ship that returned from Salem to England, and the crime laid to their charge, horresco referens, was, that the prisoners had presumed to say their prayers according to the service of the Church of England. The men were sent to England, they were imprisoned, but their lives were saved. This was persecution, not carried on by the Catholic Church, but by men who accused it of persecution. Let him now say one word, drawn from him by the allusion which had been made to that illustrious prince, the pride of this country, and who should be the pride of Ireland too—he meant William III. He revered the memory of that great monarch, and not only because he founded the civil liberties of the country, but because he had saved them from popery. That was his opinion, and it was the opinion of every man who had well weighed the eventful history of King William's time. That his glorious memory might be made the catchword—might be made the symbol — might be made the cry, the rallying cry, in order to make factious men, and zealous, over zealous, fanatical, and intolerant men, band themselves together—he was not ready to deny; and it was not in that sense that he would have their Lordships suppose that he used and echoed these words. But that they owed a debt never to be paid by endless gratitude, for the services in the cause of civil and religious liberty of that illustrious Prince, he was as fully persuaded as was his noble Friend, the noble Earl (the Earl of Roden) on the bench opposite. If they had lived in the days of the Somers, the Godolphins, and the other great men of their day, or of the days which immediately followed their time—if they had lived in these times, much as they now reprobated the provisions of the

1369
penal code, they would have no doubt felt it to be their bounden duty to have passed similar laws to those they thought necessary for the protection of religion and of the liberties of the country. But these times had passed away. There was no longer any occasion for them, and these laws had therefore been repealed—that code had ceased to exist: but that was no reason for despising the provident wisdom of those who founded that code—a code which they deemed necessary to save the country from ruin. He said this much to show his noble Friends on the other side of the question how very little animated was he with what they were pleased to call the Popish spirit. Last of all, they were told by the right rev. Prelate who presided over the metropolitan diocese, that they could not conscientiously give money for the purpose of propagating error; of propagating that which they believed to be pernicious error. In the first place, the error would be propagated whether they gave the money or not; and, in the next place, it was not their own money which they were called upon to give, it was a mixed fund to which Catholics as well as Protestants contributed. And let him, last of all, ask them what they had done before? Was this the first time that they had thus given money? He had already shown that it was not the first time, even as regarded Maynooth. But Maynooth was only one of a dozen cases in which they had given money without stint, and certainly without grudging, and, undeniably, without clamour ever being raised, or conscience being ever invoked to take part in the crusade against it. This was no question of conscience—it was simply a question of policy and of expediency. What had they done with Canada, where they had established the Roman Catholic Church? But, said the right rev. Prelate, there was the greatest difference in the world between the two cases; for, if they considered—and they must, it was urged, be ignorant of the history of Canada not to know it; this was done because Canada was ceded to us at the Peace of Paris, after the seven years' war, when we bound ourselves by treaty to maintain the Catholic Church in that province. They might be very ignorant, it was true; but as regarded this matter, it would be difficult for them to be more ignorant than the right rev. Prelate. There was no such stipulation in the Treaty of Paris at all. The Treaty having been alluded to, he had
1370
carefully read it that morning. By the Fourth Article the King of France gave up and ceded in perpetuity the two Canadas to the King of Great Britain, and the King of Great Britain promised and undertook that he would allow his new subjects in Canada the free exercise of their religion; that was to say, that he would tolerate them, that he would not persecute them; that was to say, that he would allow them to exercise the Catholic religion; but not that he was to keep up the Catholic Church, a point on which not one single syllable was said. The King of Great Britain was to allow them the exercise of the Catholic religion, so far as the same was allowed by the laws of England; so that the penal code, in fact, extended to the Roman Catholic subjects of the ceded province. In Canada, he understood, there were constant grants given—not to the Church, because the Church was sufficiently endowed by the King in his legislative capacity, and by his Ministers, which endowment was confirmed to it by Lord Grenville's Act of 1792, voluntarily, and without any obligation arising from the Treaty—but constant grants were made, to and for what? Why, if secular priests were bad, the regular priests were a great deal worse; and it was much more unconscientious to encourage and to support monks, than it was to encourage and support the secular clergy; and yet it was to support convents and monasteries that these constant grants were made. As to Malta, the case was a great deal stronger. The cession of that island first took place in 1802, and then in 1815, and no stipulation was made as to the Catholic religion. If that religion presented a forbidden aspect anywhere, it was certainly in Spain. By the Treaty of 1802, his Catholic Majesty ceded in full sovereignty the island of Trinidad, and we then undertook—not even to tolerate the Catholic religion, but to allow the Catholics three years' exercise of their religion, if they chose so long to remain on the island. There was, therefore, no obligation whatever arising from treaty to support the Roman Catholic faith in respect to Trinidad, and yet Roman Catholicism of the most intolerant and rigorous nature — that of Rome herself could not be more so—was established, endowed, and supported by this Protestant Government in the island of Trinidad; and yet no cry, no voice, no whisper has been ever raised against such a policy. Before he sat down, he wished to

1371
say one word with respect to the mode, the time, and the manner of making this endowment, which they were now contemplating. It appeared to him that the mode of so doing had been made the subject of great misrepresentation. He had heard it said, that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had avowed as one reason for giving this grant to Maynooth, that there was some considerable alarm in respect of our relations with a foreign country. He had heard it said also that the same right hon. Gentleman had assigned as another reason, that agitation could never be put down without it. He had recently seen a contrast invidiously drawn between this alleged declaration of the right hon. Gentleman, and the concluding portion of the speech last night delivered by the noble Duke in introducing this Bill, when the noble Duke said that agitation had been put down. Justice to this Government—a debt of gratitude to the Ministers who had brought forward this measure—the love of doing that which it must always be delightful to be able to effect, of rendering any service in the vindication of those whom he knew to have been calumniated—made him desirous, before he sat down, of rendering that small service, if it were in his power so to do. The right hon. Gentleman to whom he had referred might have made allusion to America. He might, in the course of his observations upon this subject, have referred to our relations with the United States. He might then have alluded to difficulties which might possibly have arisen from the dispute pending between the two countries. But he (Lord Brougham) denied, as broadly and as distinctly as his words could enable him to give it the denial, that any such apprehensions as those alluded to had, or could have had, by any possibility, any place amongst the motives which induced the Government to bring forward this measure. And why was he so clear in giving this denial? Why, for these obvious reasons. To believe that such was the case, involved an anachronism; because last year, before there were any difficulties with America, before these difficulties were dreamt of, in answer to his Friend, Mr. Wyse, in the other House of Parliament, the right hon. Gentleman distinctly announced the intentions of Her Majesty's Government, both as to Maynooth and as to the plan of academic education for Ireland. That was enough; but he would go a step further. Even if the
1372
insinuation were not met by its anachronism being stated, he would still say, that it was impossible that any apprehensions as to America, or anything of the kind, could have influenced this step on the part of Her Majesty's Ministers. And why did he say this? Because these very Ministers had taken the ground, the very highest ground, that it was possible to take. They had even gone outside and dehors the bounds of prudence, in the high ground they took in their avowals and declarations in that and the other House of Parliament, in respect to the American question. But as one reason, one argument, one advantage, was not the right hon. Baronet entitled to say—"Among the reasons which should induce you to pursue a just, an equitable, a humane, a conciliatory policy towards your countrymen in Ireland, one advantage is, that, happen what may in our external affairs, it is always safe and good to have things in a peaceful, tranquil, and conciliatory state at home." Why was the next observation made? "It is vain," the right hon. Baronet was alleged to have said, "to think to put down agitation by force." Why, he (Lord Brougham) said so too; and any one who reflected would see that it was an identical proposition. It must of necessity be true, whether any one chose to apply it invidiously or not. It was nothing new—it was no secret divulged — there was no novelty in it. It was utterly impossible to put down agitation by force until it broke out into unlawful acts. But the right hon. Baronet knew he might rely upon his countrymen; and if it should break out into unlawful acts, he was not the Minister who would shrink from putting it down by force—he was not the man who could by possibility have forgotten what his slanderers seem to have forgotten altogether, that where agitation was no longer the spirit of discontent, which could not be put down by force, but broke out into seditious acts—he could not have forgotten what it was convenient to them to forget, but he did use force, and that the use of that force was triumphantly successful. He (Lord Brougham) was by no means inclined to think agitation, before it broke out into violence, was not a serious evil. It was a great mischief to any thickly peopled country to have men's minds agitated by a disturbance of the public peace, so as to make it at any one moment a matter of risk that illegal acts should be committed. A good deal had been said

1373
of the language used by Dr. Higgins; but he must say, he set that right rev. agitator's expressions down for no more than they were worth. And this he said because he recollected that, two Sessions ago, when he fulminated his wrath against the British Parliament and in favour of the Repeal of the Union, but which he (Lord Brougham) called the severance of the countries, he added to his protest the remark, that he owed nothing to the British Legislature but what he should be always ready to pay—his unbounded contempt. Now this same individual had, some years previously, signed—he would not say a fulsome—but a loyal and wholly complimentary address to the noble Duke opposite, to His Majesty and to the Parliament, for that great act of policy, the repeal of the Penal Code. That he might in the course of a few years discover that we were to be paid off in unbounded contempt, was possible; but it took considerably from the value of his opinion, and made him (Lord Brougham) rate it at what it was worth, and regard his praise at the same rate as his scorn. The argument that the Irish people had no right to be grateful for the grant of 17,000 l., because it did not amount to three farthings a head for the Roman Catholics of Ireland, would have been equally used if it had been 300,000 l.; in which case, it would have been cavilled against as being only fivepence per head. But these men were not the indices of the Irish mind. They were not Ireland; they no more represented the sentiments of the people of Ireland, than those who associated together under the title of the people of England, being two in number, and who, when there were none others present than themselves—Mr. Wilkes and Alderman Sawbridge — issued their manifestoes, "We, the people of England." He did not consider those who made the most noise as the most to be trusted as representatives of the people. What their Lordships and the Government should do, was, to turn neither to the right nor to the left, not to go in chase of popularity, not to be disappointed when they lost it; to be glad and grateful when they obtained the thanks and the affections of their countrymen, but not to be disappointed if for the present they failed to reap that rich reward, being assured that the popularity which follows great actions is infinitely preferable to that which is run after; and that if they pursued such a course, they would deserve — ay, and, he would ven-
1374
ture to say, would ultimately obtain—that reward.
Debate further adjourned.
House adjourned.