Sitting of 20 May 1845

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1°. Fresh Water Fishing.
3°. and passed;—Indemnity.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Col. Verner, from Keady and Tartarraghan, for Encouragement to Schools in connexion with Church Education Society (Ireland).—By Mr. Colville, and Mr. Duff, from several places, for better Observance of the Lord's Day—By several hon. Members, from a great number of places, against the Grant to Maynooth College.—By Sir John Guest, Mr. Pusey, and Viscount Sandon, from several places, in favour of the Grant to Maynooth College.—By Sir John Hanmer, from several places, against Merchant Seamen's Fund Bill.—By Sir T. Fremantle, from Sligo, for Alteration of Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Act.—By Sir Richard Vyvyan, from Guardians of the Helston Union, against the Parochial Settlement Bill.—From Lowestoft, for Diminishing the Number of Public Houses.

GRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY.
The Report on the Grand Junction Railway Bill was considered.
On the Motion that the Amendments made by the Committee be now read a second time,
Mr. Ricardobegged to enter his protest against the further progress of the Bill. It would seriously injure his constituents, without at all serving the districts (the Potteries) through which it was intended to pass. He had presented petitions signed by 20,000 of his constituents, against the measure, which he trusted would have its proper weight with the House. He contended that the whole scheme was a mere juggle, seeing that the Standing Orders as regarded capital had not been complied with. The hon. Mem-

595
ber concluded by moving that the Report be taken into consideration that day six months.
Mr. Wilson Pattenobserved that the Bill had been referred to a Committee the Members of which had no personal interest in the measure. They had decided in favour of the line, considering that it would confer great advantages on the district through which it was to pass. He trusted that the House would not reverse the decision of the Committee.
Mr. E. Bullerunderstood the decision of the Committee had been come to by the casting vote of the Chairman. He had also learned that the Committee of the Board of Trade had recommended the postponement of the Bill until a future Session.
Mr. Hawes, as Chairman of the Committee, defended its decision, which had been pronounced on the merits of the case alone. It had been proved to their satisfaction, that the line would confer great local and public advantages.
Mr. Gisbornesupported the Amendment. He contended that the Potteries had been worse treated than any other district, with respect to railway communication. Ten years ago they had obtained a Bill which they sold to the Grand Junction, on the understanding that that company would carry out the line themselves. Up to this time, however, they had been left wholly without railway accommodation. He believed that the only object of the Grand Junction Company, in now coming forward, was to shut out competition and to obtain a monopoly for themselves.
Lord G. Somersetsaid, that if he were satisfied, first, that if the Bill passed, the line would be carried out; and, secondly, that it would not prevent the formation of a better line at a future period, he should be prepared to support the decision of the Committee.
Mr. Hawesassured the noble Lord that the Committee had been satisfied on both these points.
The House divided on the Question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—Ayes 73; Noes 206: Majority 133.

List of the AYES.

Ainsworth, P.

Bagot, W.

Aldam, W.

Baird, W.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Baring, F. T.

596

Barrington, Visct.

James, Sir W. C.

Bateson, T.

Jervis, J.

Blackburne, J. I.

Johnstone, H.

Broadley, H.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Buller, C.

Lawson, A.

Byng, G.

Layard, Capt.

Carew, W. H. P.

Lockhart, W.

Childers, J. W.

Lowther, Sir J. H.

Clifton, J. T.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Colebrooke, Sir T.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Collett, J.

Mahon, Visct.

Colville, C. R.

Martin, T. B.

Courtenay, Lord

Mitchell, T. A.

Dennistoun, J.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Disraeli, B.

Mundy, E. M.

Douglas, Sir H.

Pakington, J. S.

Easthope, Sir J.

Pendarves, E. W.

Ebrington, Visct.

Pollington, Visct.

Emlyn, Visct.

Price, R.

Entwisle, W.

Russell, C.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Ryder, G. D.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Sandon, Visct.

Fuller, A. E.

Shirley, E. J.

Gladstone, W. E.

Smith, A.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Somerset, Lord G.

Godson, R.

Stewart, P. M.

Greene, T.

Strickland, Sir G.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Thornhill, G.

Guest, Sir J.

Trotter, J.

Hollond, R.

Walker, R.

Hornby, J.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Howard, C. W.

Winnington, Sir T.

Howick, Visct.

TELLERS.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Patten, J. W.

James, W.

Hawes, B.

List of the NOES.

Acheson, Visct.

Brocklehurst, J.

Ackers, J.

Brotherton, J.

A'Court, Capt.

Bruce, Lord E.

Acton, Col.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Adare, Visct.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Allix, J. P.

Buckley, E.

Anson, Col.

Buller, E.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Busfeild, W.

Astell, W.

Carnegie, Capt.

Attwood, M.

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Baillie, J.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Baillie, Col.

Christie, W. D.

Baillie, H. J.

Chute, W. L. W.

Barclay, D.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Baring, H.

Clive, Visct.

Barnard, E. G.

Cobden, R.

Barron, Sir H. W.

Codrington, Sir W.

Bell, J.

Colborne, W. N. R.

Benbow, J.

Collins, W.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Colquhoun, J. C.

Berkeley, C.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Corbally, M. E.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Crawford, W. S.

Berkeley, G.

Dashwood, G. H.

Blackstone, W. S.

Dawnay, W. H.

Botfield, B.

Deedes, W.

Bowring, Dr.

Denison, J. E.

Bramston, T. W.

Dick, Q.

Bright, J.

Divett, E.

597

Dodd, G.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Mackenzie, T.

Drummond, H. H.

Mackinnon, W. J.

Duff, J.

M'Geachy, F. A.

Duncan, Visct.

McTaggart, Sir J.

Duncan, G.

Maher, N.

Duncombe, T.

Mangles, R. D.

Duncombe, O.

Manners, Lord J.

Dundas, Adm.

Marsland, H.

Dundas, F.

Masterman, J.

Du Pre, C. G.

Maunsell, T. P.

Eaton, Capt. R. J.

Milnes, R. M.

Egerton, Sir P.

Mitcalfe, H.

Egerton, W. T.

Morris, D.

Egerton, Lord F.

Muntz, G. F.

Ellice, E.

Murray, A.

Ellis, W.

Napier, Sir C.

Elphinstone, H.

Neeld, J.

Evans, W.

Neeld, J.

Fielden, J.

Newdegate, C. N.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Newport, Visct.

Ferrand, W. B.

Norreys, Lord

Fitzroy, Lord C.

O'Brien, A. S.

Fitzmaurice, hon. W.

O'Brien, J.

Ffolliott, J.

O'Connell, M. J.

Forbes, W.

O'Conor Don, The

Forman, T. S.

Osborne, R.

Forster, M.

Oswald, A.

French, F.

Packe, C. W.

Gardner, J. D.

Paget, Col.

Gibson, T. M.

Palmerston, Visct.

Gisborne, T.

Pattison, J.

Gore, M.

Pechell, Capt.

Gore, R.

Peel, J.

Granby, Marq. of

Philips, G. R.

Grimsditch, T.

Plumridge, Capt.

Grogan, E.

Praed, W. T.

Halford, Sir H.

Pusey, P.

Hall, Sir B.

Rashleigh, W.

Hallyburton, Lord

Redington, T. N.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Rendlesham, Lord

Hanmer, Sir J.

Rolleston, Col.

Hatton, Capt.

Round, C. G.

Heathcoat, J.

Round, J.

Henniker, Lord

Rous, Capt.

Hindley, C.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Hodgson, F.

Scott, F.

Holmes, W. A'C.

Somerville, Sir W.

Hughes, W. B.

Spooner, R.

Hume, J.

Stanley, E.

Humphery, Ald.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Hussey, T.

Stewart, J.

Ingestre, Visct.

Stuart, Lord J.

Jocelyn, Visct.

Strutt, E.

Johnson, Gen.

Tancred, H. W.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Taylor, E.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Thompson, Ald.

Kelly, F.

Tollemache, J.

Knightley, Sir C.

Towneley, J.

Langston, J. H.

Trelawny, J. S.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Leader, J. T.

Trollope, Sir J.

Legh, G. C.

Troubridge, Sir J. E. T.

Leveson, Lord

Turner, E.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Turner, C.

Lindsay, H.

Tyrrell, Sir J. T.

Loftus, Visct.

Vane, Lord H.

598

Verner, Col.

Wodehouse, E.

Villiers, C.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Vyvyan, Sir R. R.

Wrightson, W. B.

Waddington, H.

Wyndham, Col.

Wall, C. B.

Wyse, T.

Watson, W. H.

TELLERS.

Wawn, J. T.

Copeland, Ald.

Wilshere, W.

Ricardo, J. L.

On the main Question as amended being put,
Viscount Howicktook that opportunity of stating his opinion that it was incumbent on the Government to introduce some regulations with reference to the charges upon railways. In some cases charges were very high, and in others very low. His opinion was, that in some cases, higher charges were established than were consistent with the welfare of the public. This House ought at once to make these alterations, as they could not be made in the House of Lords. In one railway 3d. a ton per mile was charged upon coals, in another only 1d., sometimes only ¾d. where the competition was great. On many railways the charges for passengers were 3d., 2d., and 1½d. a mile in the first, second, and third classes. Now these charges were too high. With respect to the old companies, he believed there was no redress to be had; but he believed the object of the Government in introducing this new Standing Order was to establish a new rate of charges in the different conveyances of the new companies, and reduce those that should be deemed to be unreasonable. This was a question of great importance, and before the present Railway Bills should be read a third time, he trusted the Government would take up the question.
Sir G. Clerkconcurred with the noble Lord that it would be a very proper question for the consideration of the Board of Trade.
Mr. Laboucherereplied that his noble Friend had never said that the Board of Trade ought to perform any such duty. He thought, however, that the Board might look into the matter, so as to be able to make some recommendation to the House as to the rate of charges they thought reasonable. No Railway Bill, he contended, ought to be read a third time until the proposition of the right hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. S. Wortley) had been fully considered.
Consideration of the Report postponed for six months.

THE TARA MEETING.
Mr. Ferrandwished to put a question to Her Majesty's Government, of which he had not given them any notice, because he found that the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department was aware of the matter which he was about to bring forward, and if they required notice he would give it for to-morrow. He referred to a meeting which was to take place on the hill of Tara, a programme of which appeared in the Dublin Freeman's Journal of the 17th of May. It stated that the meeting was to take place on Thursday next, on the hill of Tara, on which occasion the county of Meath would demonstrate to the Ministers and to England that in 1845 the same spirit and the same determination pervaded its population which pervaded them in 1843, when a million of men assembled together. The question he wished to ask was, whether, in 1845, Her Majesty's Government would assert the majesty of the law as they had done in 1843, and prevent those monster meetings from taking place; or whether they meant tacitly to allow Mr. O'Connell and the people of Ireland to trample the law under their feet?
Sir J. Grahamsaid, that the hon. Gentleman had given him no notice of the question he had just put; but he would nevertheless answer that he certainly was aware of the probability of a numerous assembly of the people of Ireland on the occasion to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had received directions from Her Majesty's Government that the peace of Ireland should be preserved according to the laws which existed at present.

NEW ZEALAND COMPANY.
Captain Rousrose for the purpose of moving, agreeably to the Notice he had given, that the Treaty of Waitangi, confirmed and approved by Her Majesty, ought to be maintained with the strictest integrity, when
Sir R. Peelrose and said, he hoped his hon. and gallant Friend would wave the precedence to which he was entitled, and allow the adjourned debate to proceed. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, who had a Motion second on the Paper, resigned his claim, on the understanding that the adjourned debate was to be pro-
600
ceded with; and he certainly left the House last night under that impression. He hoped, therefore, that his hon. and gallant Friend would follow the example of others, and permit the Order of the Day for the adjourned debate to be proceeded with, by waving his right.
Captain Roussaid he should be sorry to interfere with the adjourned debate, but he hoped he might be permitted to state in a few words how he was situated. The last time he addressed the House on the subject of New Zealand he stated that the New Zealand Company got money under false pretences—that they decoyed labourers to the Colony, and then left them in a state of destitution. He was afraid, therefore, that if he did not take the earliest opportunity to bring forward his Motion, it might be said that he calumniated the Company; and he thought it right also to give the Company an opportunity of answering or explaining the charges he made; if they did which, he was ready to make an ample apology. There was a stigma cast upon the Company, and it was for their sake that he wished to bring forward the Motion; but, at the same time, he was the last person who would wish to stand in the way of the public business.
Sir R. Peelsaid, he thought an additional reason for not bringing on the Motion that night was, that he believed the House was not prepared for the discussion on the Motion of his hon. Friend. The general impression was that the Maynooth Bill would be proceeded with; and he doubted if those who were likely to take a part in the discussion on the New Zealand question were prepared for it.
Mr. C. Bullersaid that the hon. and gallant Member placed the postponement of his Motion on such grounds that it be came necessary for him to say, on the part of the New Zealand Company, that they were most anxious to hear his statement, and to have the question he meant to bring forward fully discussed; but, at the same time, he begged to tell the hon. and gallant Captain that he did not come down to the House prepared to discuss that night the question of the observance of the Treaty of Waitangi. He declared that till he came to the House he had not the slightest impression that the hon. and gallant Member would even take an opportunity of substantiating his charges. He never told them that he would bring it

601
on, nor had he given them the slightest idea of what his charges were. When they were brought forward, the Company would give a satisfactory answer to them; and he was therefore glad that the hon. and gallant Officer had pledged himself to support his sweeping accusation against the Company.
Captain Roussaid, he brought forward two distinct charges, and he did not know how they could be misinterpreted by any living man; and if he was a director of the Company he would not sleep in his bed till the charges were entered into. He would be happy when the hon. Gentleman brought forward the question of New Zealand, to give an explanation of the whole principle on which the Company was based. But as the hon. Gentleman said that he was not prepared, God forbid that he should attack any man in that situation—that he should attack any man who was not prepared to defend himself in every way. He wished to bring the question forward for the sake of the Company themselves. He was ready at all times and seasons to do so, but if it were postponed to-night, he found he could not bring it forward before July; but if he were a director of the Company he would not sit still for six weeks under the imputation which was cast upon them.
Subject postponed.

PRIVILEGE — PRINTED PAPERS.
The Solicitor Generalmoved to nominate the following Members as the Select Committee on Printed Papers:—Sir Robert Peel, Lord John Russell, Mr. Solicitor General, Sir Thomas Wilde, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Sir George Grey, Sir Robert Harry Inglis, Mr. Francis Baring. Viscount Mahon, Mr. Warburton, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Bernal, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Pigot, and the Lord Advocate.
Mr. T. Duncombebegged to ask a question of the hon. and learned Member. Another action, he had been informed, was brought against the Sergeant by the clerk of Mr. Howard, and he wished to know whether that was also to form a subject of inquiry before the Committee about to be appointed? The question had been now before the House during three Sessions, and it had been bandied to and fro between the courts and that place for a long period of time; he begged to know to what purpose or with what useful result? The Attorney General had formerly expressed in that House a very strong opinion that
602
the decision of the Courts would be in favour of that House. [The Solicitor General: No.] He begged the hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon; but if he referred to the speeches made on the occasion, he would find what he had stated to be the fact, and that, indeed, was the only reason which had induced the right hon. Baronet to advise the House to allow the Sergeant to plead to the action. They had now arrived at the stage of proceeding where a decision had been given against the House. What would they do? No one had taken a more active part than he had done in bringing the matter to an issue; but that proceeding related to a subject quite distinct from the present, being upon the question of publication; and in order to test the point whether the officers of the House were to be empowered to print and circulate libels against any individual without being liable to give satisfaction for so doing. That question was tried by the Court of Queen's Bench; and in consequence of the decision then the House was obliged to get an Act of Parliament passed by the Legislature in order to protect its officers. The case before the House stood upon a totally different ground. They were about to refer it to a Select Committee; but they would only delay the evil hour by that step, and not avert it. It was very childish work to refer such matters to a Committee upstairs, which could in no respect or degree aid the House in the situation in which it was placed. What he wished to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman was, whether the action brought by Mr. Pearce, the clerk of Mr. Howard, against the Sergeant, was to be subjected to the consideration of the Committee?
The Solicitor Generalsaid, that the hon. Gentleman was perfectly correct in stating that another action had been brought by a person named Pearce, who was, he believed, a clerk to Howard, against the Sergeant-at-Arms; but under what circumstances the action was brought, or what was the form of the warrant, it was impossible for him to inform the House. He believed, however, that the warrant in the case of Pearce differed in many material respects from the other. But he did not know what was the object of the hon. Gentleman on the present occasion. Did the hon. Gentleman mean that they should rescind the vote of the House for a Select Committee to report to it on the subject of the action of Howard v.

603
Gossett. His reasons for asking for a Select Committee were neither childish nor puerile, for at the present moment he was not aware of the grounds on which the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench proceeded. It would be premature to discuss the subject till they knew the grounds of the decision which had been come to. He knew it was necessary they should act promptly, but at the same time with due deliberation. He mentioned yesterday that there were other actions pending, and he stated that as a reason for proceeding with caution on the present occasion. The House had already resolved to refer the matter to a Select Committee, and he trusted the hon. Gentleman would, from the circumstances stated, see the propriety of the course adopted.
Mr. Humehad from the first been opposed to any reference of such a question as the present to a Committee. He looked upon that to be only one mode of delaying the final settlement of the question. The House must take some decisive step to vindicate its own authority. It would appear that the highest tribunal in the kingdom had no means of carrying its own orders into effect. Every other court was endowed with such a power; but, from what had occurred, it seemed that the House of Commons was destitute of such a power.
Sir R. Peelsaid, the House could come to no determination as to the steps which it would be advisable to take until the writ was actually served upon their Sergeant. That step had not yet been taken; when it was accomplished the House would be informed of it by their officer, and then would be the proper moment for resolving what to do. The House would take no proceedings in the matter until it had a full knowledge of the judgment that had been pronounced by the Court. At the same time, he must recall to the recollection of hon. Members the fact that he had anticipated the judgment which now formed the subject of consideration, on an occasion when a noble and learned Judge had referred in another place to a speech which he had made on the subject, and he had anticipated that the decision would, as it had done, turn upon a technical point, and not upon the merits of the case.
Mr. Wardsaid, it was necessary for the House to act with caution in regard to the issuing of warrants, after the language that had been heard from the Bench by a Judge upon whose calmness of disposition, and whose learning and qualifications, the
604
House had every reason to rely with implicit confidence. The learned person to whom he referred—Mr. Justice Coleridge—who had a written judgment in the case recently decided in the court where he sat, and who, in the course of that judgment, expressed the greatest doubts whether a messenger of that House might not be murdered with impunity by any person whom, in obedience to the orders of the House, he might attempt to take into custody upon the authority of the Speaker's warrant—that learned Judge expressed himself to be doubtful whether such an act as killing a messenger under such circumstance could be held to be a crime. If anything would operate as a warning to the House to proceed with caution in any future steps it might take, such an opinion as the one he had referred to ought to have that effect. And, considering that the hon. Member for Montrose had given notice of his intention to persevere in his Motion for a call of the House on the 22nd of the month, and that the probable consequence would be to send messengers to Ireland to bring over the absent Members—the sooner that question was decided the better.
Sir R. Inglissaid, that had the present conversation taken place on the preceding day, when the Committee was first proposed by the hon. and learned Solicitor General, it would have been appropriate; but the House having consented to nominate a Select Committee to inquire into the whole subject, he thought it was ill-timed. The question before the House was, whether the Motion which stood No. 14 on the Paper should proceed, and the names proposed by the hon. and learned Member and from the Chair should be those which were to constitute the Select Committee; in his opinion every question should stand on its own grounds, and not be mixed up with other extraneous matters. The question to be examined into was the nature of the decision, and the grounds upon which the Judges had decreed that the proceeding of the House was wrong. It was impossible for them to remedy the defect in their own proceedings. Nothing could eke out a defective warrant. If the warrant was illegal from informality, the person who resisted was justified in law. To try a principle, extreme cases should always be selected, and in the present instance that seemed to be the result that would be derived from the proceeding.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that that did not appear to him an improper opportunity for

605
raising the present discussion; for, although the House had consented, on the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, to appoint a Committee, yet no time had been afforded it to deliberate upon the proper course to pursue; and, therefore, if the step that had been taken in agreeing to a Committee, appeared, upon mature reflection, to be a hasty or an improper one, the House would be perfectly right in reversing its decision, and it would be highly expedient to do so. But he certainly considered it extremely advisable for the House to have all the facts clearly before it, and also, that it should have an opportunity of calmly examining what the judgments were which had been pronounced by the Court of Queen's Bench. The question was of great importance, and he must certainly declare that he was not yet sufficiently informed upon the subject, and for that reason he was prepared to go into a Committee upstairs, and to acquire the necessary knowledge to enable him to deal with the matter in that House.
Motion agreed to. Committee nominated.

TRINITY COLLEGE (DUBLIN).
Mr. Bernal Osbornemoved that there be laid before this House—
"A Return of all Moneys derived from Rents of College Lands, Endowments, Bequests, Fees on Matriculations, and taking of Degrees; specifying the amount of Income paid therefrom to the Senior and Junior Fellows, Professors, Scholars, and other Officers of Trinity College, Dublin."
Sir T. Fremantlewas under an impression that the Motion would be postponed, as were several other Motions on the Paper. He hoped the hon. Member would not, under the circumstances, persevere in bringing it forward.
Mr. Osbornehoped the right hon. Gentleman would fix another day for the Motion, otherwise he would persist in then dividing on the question.
Sir T. Fremantlesaid, the House was evidently not prepared to enter on the question at that moment, as it was under an impression that hon. Members who had Notices of Motions would yield precedence to the Order of the Day for the adjourned debate on the Maynooth grant.
Mr. Osbornesaid, he should much have preferred that the debate on the Maynooth grant should have been disposed of last night, for he did not at all approve of the principle of withdrawing independent Motions
606
to make way for adjourned debates. He had a Motion on the Paper for throwing open Trinity College to our Catholic fellow subjects; and, as a preparatory measure, he thought it was necessary to have the Return which he moved for. He maintained that the House had a perfect right to order the Return, and he should certainly press his Motion to a division.
Mr. Humetrusted that there would be no objection to the Motion. As public property, he should like to know what were the resources applicable to education, and what to other purposes, in Trinity College. Any objection to the Motion must have its origin in the fear that something wrong in the system might be exposed by it. At this time, when the country was being called upon to vote money for academical purposes in Ireland, he regarded such a Motion as peculiarly applicable and necessary, and he should therefore give it his most unqualified support.
Mr. Shawwould object to any such return as that proposed by the hon. Member (Mr. Osborne). He would do so in very few words then, as the House was evidently indisposed to the very irregular course taken by the hon. Member in bringing forward a Notice which stood at the end of a long list; it being supposed that all would acquiesce, as all the other hon. Members in whose names Notices stood, had, in the general understanding of the House, that the adjourned debate on the Maynooth Bill was to be proceeded with—in a word, then, his objection was, that the House, which made no grant to the University of Dublin, had no right to require from them a return of their property; and that the inquiry sought was of a most invidious nature, scrutinizing the emoluments of every officer of the College, from the Provost downwards, where no abuse had been alleged, and no case attempted to be made for such an unusual course of proceeding. The English Universities were not subject to any such inquisitorial exercise of power on the part of that House; and why should the Irish University? The same Motion had been made last Session by the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Wyse), and resisted by the Government, on the grounds that he had stated; and, as he could have no doubt the Government would pursue the same course at present, he would not, on that very inopportune occasion, further trouble the House than to say, that he

607
would meet the Motion of the hon. Member with a decided negative.
Mr. Wardthought the last statement of the right hon. Gentleman was a reason for the Government supporting the Motion this year.
Mr. Warburtonconceived there were sufficient precedents for acceding to the Motion. The inquiry into the charities of England and Wales, afforded a very conclusive one.
Sir T. Fremantlesaid, it appeared to him that the precedents were the reverse of what was assumed by the hon. Gentleman. On the occasion of the inquiry alluded to, there was a special exemption in favour of the English Universities, and some of the public schools; and it was now proposed to deny a similar exemption to Trinity College, Dublin. The property held by the corporation of Trinity College was to a certain extent of a private nature; and he would not adopt a precedent in the case of that College from which the English Universities had been so expressly exempted.
Mr. Ewartsaid, that the special exemption in favour of the English Universities, which had been so relied on by the right hon. Baronet, was far from being a good reason for refusing an inquiry into the case of Trinity College, Dublin. On the contrary, the fact of the exemption having been claimed, showed that the House had power to inquire.
Sir T. Fremantledid not deny the power of the House; but he deprecated the exercise of the power in this case.
Mr. Sheilsaid, that the property of Trinity College consisted of a certain endowment by Bishop Thomas Baldwin; and a grant made by Elizabeth of the lands of the Earl of Desmond, which had been confiscated to the Crown. These lands lay principally in the county of Kerry; and they amounted to some hundred thousand acres. The House might perhaps draw a distinction with respect to Bishop Baldwin's endowment; but why was the grant made by the Crown, for a great national purpose, to be exempt from inquiry? What motive had they for hiding the extent of the funds of the College, and concealing the application of them? The other evening he stated that the senior Fellows of the College had 2,000 l. a year each. The hon. Gentleman opposite immediately contradicted him; but subsequently conceded that they had
608
nearly 2,000 l. each. There were seven senior Fellows, whose offices were nearly sinecures—so here were seven men admittedly in possession of 14,000 l. a year between them. That much they knew; but they did not know how the rest of the funds were disposed of. The hon. Member for the University of Dublin resisted this inquiry. He was not inconsistent in doing so; for as Recorder of the Corporation of Dublin, he had also resisted inquiry into the application of the property of that corporation. But in this instance, he had given no reason why they should not ascertain whether the amount of funds at the disposal of the College was exaggerated or not.
Sir R. Inglissaid, that the hon. Member for Dumfries had overstated the powers of the House. The Returns which the hon. Member had alluded to were made by Act of Parliament; but the Returns now required were proposed to be by the Order of the House. That made all the difference. There was no reason assigned for the Returns. He had not heard even an allegation of abuse. The only statement made was, that seven of the Fellows had 2,000 l. a year each; but that did not give any right to inquire. They had no more right to call for these Returns from the University of Dublin, than from the Apothecaries' Company; or any other similar corporation. No charge had been made against the College; and they had, therefore, not even a pretext for acceding to the Motion, which he would, for his part, certainly oppose.
Mr. Bellewcontended, that it could not be said that the University of Dublin could make away with its property. It was accountable for its application; and he thought it important that the House should obtain the required Return.
Mr. M. Gibsonsaid, that the power of Parliament to inquire into such matters had been proved by the issuing of the Commission referred to by the hon. Member for Kendal; and the power of the Universities over Parliament had been proved by their obtaining an exemption from the inquiry. It was precisely the case of applying the principle of free trade to everything except corn and sugar.
Mr. T. Duncombesupposed that the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford was fearful, if these Returns were obtained with regard to Trinity College, Dublin, that they would

609
be made to extend to Oxford as well. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland doubted the propriety of that House exercising its power in obtaining an inquiry, but he assigned no reason whatever for such a doubt; and what must the country think, if the Motion were rejected, but that there was something rotten in the University of Dublin, which would not bear investigation? They were about to vote 26,000 l. of the public money for Maynooth College—there was no secret as to the salaries of the professors there. They knew also what were to be the salaries of the professors in the new Universities which were to be established in Ireland; and why should there be any secret as to the salaries at Trinity College and Oxford? He trusted that his hon. Friend would persevere with his Motion; for if he did not press it then, he would very probably have no opportunity of bringing it forward again during the present Session.
Sir R. Peelsaid, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart) had stated that there was no reason why the University of Dublin should be exempted from the rule that had been applied to other cases. He doubted whether any such rule as seemed to be referred to had been applied by that House to the Universities of this country. He did not know any case in which that House had on its own authority called upon Oxford or Cambridge, or any University, for returns of its revenues. The question which they were discussing was, whether the House should, by its own authority, and not upon the authority of an Act of Parliament, order the Returns moved for. He doubted whether the House had the power to order such Returns. [Mr. Ewart: It did in the case of the Scotch Universities.] That was done by Royal Commission. The hon. Member's Notice stood as the 16th Order of the Day, and he (Sir R. Peel) had not the slightest conception that it would come on that evening. Notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Sheffield had said, he should give his vote on this occasion as he gave it last Session—against the Motion, because he did not believe that any such principle as that sought to be established had ever been acted upon by that House. The question was one which he thought the House should not too hastily dispose of; but if it were pressed to a division he should certainly oppose it.
Lord. J. Russellwas far from saying that in every case the House should order returns from corporations or colleges with respect either to their rents or their salaries; but he conceived that there had been a case made out for such a return in the present instance. In the first place, they were called upon to vote out of the taxes a considerable sum for the promotion of education and learning in Ireland; and secondly, there was a statement made by a Member of the House that seven of the senior Fellows of Trinity College divided amongst them the sum of 14,000 l. a year, whilst they did extremely little for it. Those circumstances formed in his (Lord J. Russell's) opinion a sufficient reason why the House should ask for full information. If, with regard to those Colleges depending on the Crown, it should appear that there was an income not applied to the purposes for which it was originally required and intended, then he thought the House might well take that matter into consideration when they should come to decide the plan of academical education in Ireland. For that reason he should vote for the Motion. If any better way of obtaining the required information were suggested by the Minister of the Crown; if he agreed, for example, to an address to the Crown, by which the Crown might call for the information; or, if he consented to agree to a Bill to be passed immediately, by which they should obtain all the information with respect to the College that they wanted, even such measures, though they might be somewhat dilatory, yet if they would have greater efficacy, and should be brought forward by the Minister, he should be prepared to support, if it would be any convenience to the Government, in preference to the Motion of his hon. Friend; but, after the manner in which the Motion had been opposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, with no promise of obtaining the information sought for in another way, he (Lord J. Russell) had no alternative but to vote for the Motion of his hon. Friend.
Mr. Colquhounsaid, that the noble Lord the Member for London had justified his vote upon two grounds—first, because they were about to vote from the taxes of the country a sum of money for the purposes of Education in Ireland. But they were going to do just the same thing in England; and if that argument were

611
good for an inquiry into Trinity College, Dublin, it was equally good for an inquiry into the Universities of England, though the noble Lord had carefully guarded himself from saying that he was prepared to vote for an inquiry into all the Universities of the country. Then the noble Lord said, that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dungarvon, that certain senior Fellows of Trinity College, Dublin, received 2,000 l. a year each, was quite sufficient to justify the House in instituting an inquiry. Now, if they were to take all the statements of hon. Members of that House as facts warranting inquiries, they would soon have more inquiries than they would know what to do with. In the noble Lord's grounds, therefore, for supporting that Motion, he (Mr. Colquhoun) could not concur; though at the same time he would say, with the most earnest desire for the maintenance and support of Trinity College, Dublin, that if there were any appropriation of funds in that College beyond what was necessary for the due and adequate maintenance of the Fellows, it would be highly becoming in that Collage to take care that such measures should be adopted as should render such allegations, if again repeated, capable of instant refutation.
Lord J. Russell, in explanation, said, that the hon. Gentleman had omitted part of his argument. In quoting the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dungarvon, in reference to the income of the senior Fellows of Trinity College, Dublin, he not only stated that they had 2,000 l. a year, but added, what the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Line omitted, that they received that sum for the performance of very light duties. The question regarding England he was quite prepared to let stand upon its own merits.
Mr. Bright, who rose amidst loud calls for a division, said, he was anxious that the country should have every information respecting Trinity College; and if there was any thing in that institution not fit to meet the public eye, he did not see why the Government should vote for the concealment of this information. He should consider himself justified in voting against the proposition to endow Government Colleges in Ireland, so long as the Government refused to inform Parliament how the funds of Trinity College were
612
disposed of. He should support the Motion.
Mr. B. Osbornewas greatly puzzled to understand what objection the Government could have to the Motion. He was glad, however, to find that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland had made a step in advance. At one time he had defended the Church of Ireland, and had denied the right of Parliament to make any inquiry with regard to it. The right hon. Gentleman had, however, that night admitted the right of Parliament to inquire into corporate property, and merely deprecated its doing so in the present instance. As the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had not expressed any decided opinion on the subject, but had left himself at perfect liberty to agree to the Motion at some future period, he thought that some hon. Member ought to have moved the adjournment of the debate. He himself was precluded from doing so. With regard to the University of Dublin, he could not help remarking that it was represented in that House by two Gentlemen who had not been brought up in that University. He thought that that of itself almost formed a ground for inquiry. He begged to remind the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Shaw), that they had obtained Returns of the revenues of all the Bishops of Ireland; and he wished to know upon what ground the Government refused him the Return he had moved for. If the right hon. Baronet would give him a pledge that he would institute an inquiry, he would not trouble the House with dividing.
The House divided:—Ayes 53; Noes 82: Majority 29.

List of the AYES.

Acheson, Visct.

Fielden, J.

Archbold, R.

Gibson, T. M.

Baine, W.

Grey, Sir G.

Barnard, E. G.

Guest, Sir J.

Bellew, R. M.

Hatton, Capt.

Bright, J.

Hawes, B.

Brotherton, J.

Heron, Sir R.

Browne, hon. W.

Howard, C. W.

Buller, C.

Langston, J. H.

Butler, P. S.

Layard, Capt.

Cobden, R.

McTaggart, Sir J.

Crawford, W. S.

Mangles, R. D.

Dashwood, G. S.

Muntz, G. F.

Duncan, G.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Duncombe, T.

O'Brien, J.

Escott, B.

Pechell, Capt.

Evans, W.

Plumridge, Capt.

Ewart, W.

Rawdon, Col.

613

Roche, E. B.

Tancred, H. W.

Russell, Lord J.

Turner, E.

Sheil, R. L.

Villiers, C.

Shelburne, Earl of

Wall, C. B.

Sheridan, R. B.

Warburton, H.

Smith, B.

Ward, H. G.

Somerville, Sir W.

Yorke, H. R.

Somes, J.

TELLERS.

Strickland, Sir G.

Osborne, R.

Strutt, E.

Hume, J.

List of the NOES.

Acton, Col.

Henley, J. W.

Adare, Visct.

Herbert, S.

Allix, J. P.

Hussey, T.

Arbuthnott, H.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Barkly, H.

Jermyn, Earl

Baring, W. B.

Kirk, P.

Barrington, Visct.

Law, hon. C. E.

Blackburne, J. I.

Lawson, A.

Blackstone, W. S.

Lincoln, Earl of

Boldero, H. G.

Lowther, Sir J.

Borthwick, P.

McGeachy, F. A.

Bowles, Adm.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Briscoe, M.

McNeill, D.

Broadley, H.

Mahon, Visct.

Bruce, Lord E.

Martin, C. W.

Cardwell, E.

Masterman, J.

Cholmondeley, H.

Mundy, E. M.

Clerk, Sir G.

Neeld, J.

Clive, Visct.

O'Brien, A. S.

Colquhoun, J. C.

Palmer, G.

Compton, H. C.

Peel, Sir R.

Corry, H.

Peel, J.

Damer, hon. Col.

Plumptre, J. P.

Darby, G.

Polhill, F.

Denison, E. B.

Pusey, P.

Douglas, Sir H.

Richards, R.

Drummond, H. H.

Rolleston, Col.

Du Pre, C. G.

Round, C. G.

Ferrand, W. B.

Russell, C.

Ffolliott, J.

Sandon, Visct.

Forman, T. S.

Shaw, F.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Smith, T. B. C.

Gardner, J. D.

Somerset, Lord G.

Gladstone, Capt.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Godson, R.

Taylor, E.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Gore, W. O.

Verner, Col.

Graham, Sir J.

Vernon, G. H.

Greene, T.

Wortley, J. S.

Grimsditch, T.

Hamilton, Lord C.

TELLERS.

Hampden, R.

Young, J.

Harcourt, G. G.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

MAYNOOTH COLLEGE—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
Sir H. W. Barron, in resuming the adjourned debate, said that he could perfectly well understand the opposition which had been offered to the Bill by the numerous Protestant Dissenters of England, who objected on principle to all grants by the State for religious purposes; but when he saw a large majority of the opponents of
614
the measure in that House composed of Gentlemen who had on various occasions supported the principle of religious endowments by the State, he confessed he was at a loss to understand how it was they had been induced to join in the cry which had been raised against the measure now under consideration. He was surprised that hon. Gentlemen should take advantage of that cry, and found their opposition to the present Bill upon it; he was astonished that hon. Gentlemen should take advantage of that most improper cry, which was abroad in the country, and come down and tell Her Majesty's Ministers, in consequence of it, that they were not acting in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the constituencies, or of the people of this country. A reference to the petitions which had been presented to the House of Commons, against the proposed grant to Maynooth, would show what was the real nature of the prayer contained in those petitions. He would give them a fair sample of those petitions, by just reading a portion from one of them, emanating from a special general meeting of a body of the dissenting ministers of the three denominations, residing in and about the city of Westminster. The principal objection which they had to the present Bill was not that it was an endowment of the College of Maynooth as a Roman Catholic College, or as a school for the education of the clergy of that persuasion; but an objection to the principle of the endowment of any religious institution whatsoever. Were not the grounds of their opposition, then, to this measure apparently dishonest ones? The Dissenters of this country—as was evident from that petition to which he referred, and the very words of which he used—did not object to the present Bill because it was an endowment of the Catholic religion, but because it was an endowment of any religion whatsoever. What, then, became of the opposition to it of the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford, or the hon. Member for Kent, those champions of the Established Church in this country? Were not the principles they advocated diametrically opposed to those of the Protestant Dissenters of England, as expressed in that petition? Let, then, the ground of opposition to the present Bill be clearly understood; but let it not be placed, as it was sought to be placed, upon a dishonest footing. He believed that nine out of every ten of these petitioners would be and were

615
equally opposed to the endowment of the Protestant Church Establishment, either in England, Ireland, or Scotland. The words of the petition were these, "because we conscientiously object to the endowment of any religious institution whatsoever." The champions, therefore, of the Protestant Church Establishment in England, Scotland, or Ireland, had no support from the petitions of the Dissenting bodies presented to that House. But he (Sir H. W. Barron) would beg to remark to the Dissenting ministers of this country, that this grant to Maynooth stood upon broad and distinct principles, apart from any grant to any other body whatsoever in the United Kingdom. In the first place, it had been sanctioned by the Irish Parliament, and then by the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, for forty-five years; and, moreover, it should be borne in mind, and no one but an unwise man and shortsighted statesman would forget it, that the great body of the Catholics of Ireland are keenly sensible and fully alive to the fact, that it was by English force, English violence, and English bayonets, that they were deprived of the original endowments of their own Church. Restore them these endowments, and they would not come to ask for any grant; but keep those endowments, contrary to the wishes, feelings, and prejudices, if you will, of the people of that country—contrary to the interests of the Catholics of Ireland, and apply them for Protestant purposes, and who could say, but that the Catholics of Ireland had a just right and claim upon the Parliament of England, so long as that property which was granted by Catholics, and for Catholic purposes, was devoted to Protestant purposes exclusively? As long as that continued so, the Catholics of Ireland might very fairly be supposed to expect some sort of restitution. It was true the Catholics of Ireland had not come to that House to ask for the present grant, which, in comparison to the property of which they had been deprived, was a paltry miserable pittance; but nevertheless he thought it would be received by the great majority of the Roman Catholic hierarchy and clergy of Ireland as an honest and honourable grant on the part of the British Parliament; he believed it would be received in a spirit of peace and kindness, and thankfulness more than commensurate with its amount. But he would ask, did not the circumstances he mentioned draw a long line of distinction between the grant to the
616
College of Maynooth and any other grant they could give in this country? There was no analogy between the cases of the Dissenting clergy of this country and the Roman Catholic clergy, so far as the application of the voluntary principle to both was concerned; for the Dissenters never had any property of their own, while the Roman Catholics had, of which they had been deprived. It would, therefore, be not only unnatural, but impossible, to suppose that under such a state of things the Catholics of Ireland could feel perfectly satisfied unless such grants as the present were occasionally made to them as the exigencies of the occasion required. How would the people of England act, if similarly circumstanced with the people of Ireland? Suppose, for instance, Napoleon had succeeded by his armament at Boulogne, in conquering this country, and the property of its inhabitants or the Established Church handed over to the Roman Catholics by the invaders, what would the English people think or feel upon such an occasion? How would they act? They would think, and feel, and act like men. They would say to the invaders, "You have done us an injustice, and sooner or later you must make us restitution." The second objection to the Maynooth grant, however, was made upon religious grounds. Now, that objection, he thought, was extremely untenable in a country like this, which was in itself so much divided upon religious points, and where there were people professing so many different religions. But what were the real facts of the case in this Empire? They had established in England the religion of the majority of the people; they had established in Scotland the religion of the majority; but in Ireland alone they had established the religion of the minority. Was not that a state of things that it was impossible for the people of Ireland to submit to with anything like patience? Was it not on the face of it an insult? and unless they could soften down the asperities caused by these things—asperities rankling for 300 years—unless they treated the Irish Roman Catholics in the manner which would be manifested by acts like the present proposed one; how could they hope to remove successfully the animosities entertained towards British rule? The statements made by hon. Members in that House, that the majority of the people of this country were strongly opposed to the present measure, would furnish Mr. O'Connell with the

617
strongest possible arguments in favour of a Repeal of the Union. The hon. Baronet again referred to a document setting forth the reasons alleged by some of the opponents of the present measure, which were founded on their avowed hostility to the Catholic religion. The document went on to say, "We oppose this grant because the doctrines taught at Maynooth are of the most rigid school of Papistry." He would not make any remark on the term "Papistry," which was a kind of insulting phrase; but he confessed he did not well understand what the sentence exactly meant. He presumed it intended to convey that because the pure and distinct doctrines of the Catholic Church were taught at Maynooth, and no other, that that was sufficient ground for opposition. But he supposed the terms "rigid school of Papistry" meant such doctrines as were inculcated by what was called Jesuitism—a word used to frighten children with in the nursery. An hon. Gentleman opposite laughed; but he would ask him had he ever taken the trouble to inquire into the real history of the Jesuits? If he had done so, he would find that they were a body of the most learned men who had ever been united together in any country all over the world—men who had by their piety, learning, and various acts of charity in religion, done more for the spreading of the religion of Christianity all over the universe than the priests of all other religions put together—men who had traversed the deserts of Africa, had penetrated into the heart of China, and carried their labours into lands where it was certain death for them to be discovered. They were men who had devoted themselves most zealously and unshrinkingly to propagate that which they believed to be truth, and would be agreeable to their Divine Master. But the religion of these men, which it was attempted now to cry down and asperse in England, was the religion of their ancestors, in the most glorious days of English history. It was the religion of those who secured its best liberties for this country—the religion of those who obtained Magna Charta. It was a Roman Catholic archbishop who attached the first signature to that great charter of British liberty, and handed it then to the tyrant John to confirm it. It was by Roman Catholics that the battles of Agincourt and Cressy were fought and won. Their own Henrys and Edwards, too, were Catholics, at the most glorious epochs of English history. That history
618
must be forgotten, certainly, by those who at the present day vituperated the Catholic religion. Did they recollect that it was Roman Catholics founded their Universities of Oxford and Cambridge?—that it was Catholics who founded that glorious temple which stood just outside the gates of that House—that it was Roman Catholics who had erected the splendid ecclesiastical edifices, whose ruins were spread all over the country? What had been done like these things by any of those who succeeded them? Who was it that had adorned their towns with churches, convents, and monasteries, from whence the poor had never been sent empty away, and until the destruction of which they never had a poor law in this country, nor had they ever wanted one? Could they forget all these things? But when he heard all the calumnies and false accusations which were heaped upon that religion, he considered he would be unworthy his place in that House if he did not come forward and remind them of those things, and refute all those unfounded and senseless calumnies. He knew that the imputations cast on the Roman Catholics and some of the doctrines attributed to them were scandalously false. He believed that there was not one single doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church which, if fairly and honestly examined, any Protestant in that House might not subscribe to, and that every doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church was supported by one or other of their own divines. He maintained that the man who denied that position was grossly ignorant of the Roman Catholic religion. He had never heard of any doctrines in his Church which were not maintained in their own Book of Common Prayer, and by some at least of their own own eminent divines. They might differ as to matters of detail or as to matters of form, but these things had nothing to do with real religion. It was misapprehension—it was gross and unfounded prejudice that prevented these things being generally known. It was the interest of certain parties to keep them divided; but in his conscience he believed, as an honest man, that in essentials there was less difference between the two Churches than was generally supposed, or than any man would believe who had not inquired into the facts. The Dissenters of this country might talk of the dreadful doctrines of the Church of Rome; but those were gentlemen who in nine cases out of ten had never read Roman Catholic works, who knew the

619
Roman Catholic religion from their nursery maids only, and who took certain things for granted merely because they had been told them. The mischievous, absurd, and dangerous appeals which had of late been made to the people of England upon that subject, had done more to alienate the affections of the Irish people, than all the acts of all the Governments within the last forty years. During the last six weeks there had been more done to widen the breach between the two countries than most men could believe; and the proceedings to which he was referring had made a deep impression on the people of Ireland. He regretted that from the bottom of his heart. The great question which they had then to decide was, whether they would vote with the prejudices of a portion of the English people, or whether they would vote for the great interests of the Empire. The sum was small; but they ought, if possible, to vote it by a large majority. The sum was nothing; but the principle was everything. He believed that if they passed that measure in a kindly spirit, they would be repaid tenfold in the love and gratitude of the Irish people. If they rejected it, they would add to the cup of bitterness in Ireland an ingredient more bitter than any that had ever proceeded from that House; and they could not, he would tell them, ever succeed in governing the people of Ireland by violence and force.
Mr. Lawsonsaid, that he did not mean to make any reply to the observations of the hon. Baronet who had just sat down with respect to the Roman Catholic religion, because he thought that it would be much better not to enter into religious discussions in that House. He should take care that not a word which could offend the feelings of his Roman Catholic fellow subjects should fall from his lips. But he should, at the same time, feel it his duty to express his unqualified opposition to the measure then under the consideration of the House. He looked upon the Church of Ireland and the Church of England as one; and it was because he believed that if he were to vote in favour of that measure, he should be betraying the interests of the English no less than of the Irish Church, that he was decidedly hostile to the Bill. Since he had had the honour of a seat in that House, he had always voted against any grant to the College of Maynooth; and he did not see that difference between a smaller and a larger grant which some Gentlemen appeared to see, that could in-
620
duce him to support the one, after having uniformly opposed the other. He did not object merely to a larger or to a smaller grant, but he objected to any grant whatever. His wish would be to have Maynooth opened as a collegiate establishment, in connexion with the new academical institutions. He had always supported the grant for education in Ireland; and he should not object to the grant to Maynooth if that establishment were to be thrown open to the laity as well as to the clergy. He did not oppose the grant the more or the less on account of its increase, because whatever they did with what he considered the poisoned cup, the ingredients would still continue the same. He should observe that in that part of the country with which he was connected, the general feeling both of Dissenters and of Churchmen was decidedly opposed to that measure. He did not wish to see the question made a subject of party or sectarian squabbles. He was anxious, on the contrary, that the Roman Catholics should be so educated that they might be able to meet Protestants in fair argument; and then let the truth prevail. As to a compact, he did not think that there had been any, even as regarded the minor grant; and as to a restitution, he should only observe that that was a very dangerous question to raise, for if a restitution were to take place, it might extend to very high quarters. He should conclude by thanking the House for the patience with which it had listened to his observations, and by stating that it would certainly be his duty to oppose the measure then before the House.
Mr. Cholmondeleysaid, that he was far from considering that measure as one of unalloyed good, and entirely free from any mixture of evil. He thought that it could not be unattended with some risk; but that risk he was willing to run for the good results which he believed would follow its passing; and he should, therefore, be prepared deliberately to give his vote in favour of the third reading of the Bill. With reference to the feelings of his constituents upon the subject, he should only observe, that he would not pay them the bad compliment of considering himself as their delegate, and not as their representative. It was his honest and conscientious belief, that in voting for the Motion before the House, he should be voting for a measure which would do much more good than harm; and which could not in any way endanger

621
the constitution of the Empire. It was said, that that measure would afford an undue encouragement of the Roman Catholic religion, and an undue discouragement of the Protestant religion; but he confessed that that was not his opinion. He did not close his eyes to what he believed to be the errors of the Roman Catholic religion, or the dangerous tendency of those errors; but he did not think that in supporting the present measure he would be doing anything which would be likely to extend those errors; for that measure had for its whole sole and special object the raising of the condition of the Irish priests; and by voting for it, therefore, he believed he would be so far from doing anything to propagate error, that he would be voting for what was far more calculated to diminish error than to extend it. He did not consider that by voting for that measure, he was binding himself in any way to vote for any ulterior measures which he might think calculated to affect in an injurious manner the interests of the Protestant religion in this country. He felt that very strongly; and he could not, he thought, too much insist upon the point. The measure involved no new principle; and was, in his opinion, purely financial. It had been urged, as an objection to it, that it had not succeeded in contenting the Repeal faction; but it appeared to him one of the greatest advantages of the measure, that it held out a sop to no party, but had been brought forward in a spirit of firmness and justice, at the sacrifice of personal popularity. Arguments might possibly be found against the measure; but he agreed with the right hon. Member for Newark in thinking that they applied chiefly to matters of detail, and therefore could not fairly be brought forward at this stage of the Bill. He did not regard the present as a religious question. There were, as had been observed, three ways of dealing with the subject—to leave the grant in its present state, to place it on a more enlarged footing, or to discontinue it altogether. If there were any prepared to recommend the latter course, he would join issue with them. No one would maintain, he apprehended, that the discontinuance of the grant must necessarily involve the discontinuance of the College, which would still subsist; the difference being, that those educated there would be brought up in hostility to this country.
622
So few, however, were the advocates of this course, that it was unnecessary for him to dwell longer upon it; and the choice remained between allowing the College to remain in its present state, and amending it. He was not prepared to leave it as it was, and could conceive no better scheme for its amendment than that proposed by the Government; nor did he think that in supporting it he was violating any religious principle; for he agreed with the late Dr. Arnold, who said, "I have one great principle, which I never lose sight of—to insist strongly on the difference between Christian and anti-Christian, and to sink into nothing the difference between Christian and Christian." Would that those who declaimed so loudly on the beauty of Christian charity, would allow it to influence their conduct, and extend to others a little of that toleration which they so largely demanded for themselves! They were warned to beware lest they fostered the Roman Catholic religion in Ireland; but he denied that the measure before them would make one Roman Catholic more, or one Protestant less, in Ireland. He could conceive nothing better calculated to improve the Irish people than to raise the standard of the Irish priest. Another strong argument in favour of the Bill was the danger of throwing it out. If they turned out the present Government, what government could replace them? It must be a government pledged to oppose such a measure. The result of a refusal to pass the Bill, would be to stop all improvement in Ireland, in deference to what the practical good sense of the country would soon discover to have been a mere bugbear. He did not look upon it as a panacea for all the evils of Ireland, neither did he support it on the supposition that it would increase the Protestant interest in that country. He was no friend to proselytism; but the history of all reformations proved that the conversion must come from within the Church, and not from without; Luther was a Roman Catholic. Depend on it the great parent of error was ignorance. Let the measure only be received by Ireland in the same spirit as that in which it was conferred by England, and it could not fail of being an equal benefit to the country which bestowed and the country which received it.
Mr. Ffolliottwas opposed to the Bill on

623
principle—not upon the question as to the amount of the grant. He had already voted against the smaller grant, and he held that there was a great difference between a mere annual grant and a premanent endowment secured by an Act of Parliament. The Protestant State of this country held and maintained that the principles of the Roman Catholic religion were erroneous and superstitious; and he could not but think that by passing this Bill they would adopt and endow that erroneous and superstitious religion, and raise it to an equality with that of the Established Church. He denied, in the most unqualified manner, that the Protestants of Ireland were favourable to this measure; and he was fortified in giving that denial by the petitions which had been laid on the Table of the House, and by the correspondence which he had had with the Protestants of that country. He had that night presented a petition against it from a parish in Tyrone, signed by 600 persons, who, he was informed by a letter, declared that they considered the First Lord of the Treasury as the enemy of Protestantism, and requested him to put on public record their utter detestation of the proposed measure. Before this fatal Bill passed, he hoped that at least there would be an inquiry into the system of education pursued at Maynooth. That system was described as antisocial and demoralizing; that the College was under the control and influence of the Jesuits; that the students were taught to hold allegiance to a foreign potentate, and to look to be absolved from the sanctity of any oath binding them to allegiance to the Sovereign of these realms. Those were the opinions believed in the country; let them, therefore, be shown by a public inquiry that they were unfounded. With much reluctance he must declare that he believed the measure would be most destructive to the best interests of the country, and for that reason he should support the Amendment.
Sir D. Norreyssaid, that as far as he could judge, he had scarcely ever known a measure more honestly introduced into Parliament, and more honestly supported than the present. On this question nothing could be more honourable than the conduct of those English Representatives who belonged to that party to which he had the honour to be attached. They had refrained from taking any party advantage which the occasion might have offered for the purpose of damaging the Government,
624
and had determined to do that which was right for Ireland, even at the risk of jeopardizing their own seats in that House. The hon. Gentlemen opposite had also acted well towards Ireland. They had proposed a measure which they must have foreseen would not give them any immediate popularity; but they had proposed it, because they thought it right, in spite of all party considerations; and for this they deserved the greatest credit. It had been said, that there was no new principle contained in this measure; but he must say, that he thought the pledging the State in the irrevocable manner in which they were now doing, to supply a sufficient body of Catholic clergy for the Irish people — a clergy belonging to a religion which the majority of that House believed to be a religion of error—was a strong principle for the House to adopt; and he anticipated from this measure a speedy settlement of the Church question in Ireland. They had passed a great gulf. They had undertaken, on the part of the State, to educate a body of men who would maintain what the majority of that House considered to be a religion of error; and to go further, and support the clergy whom they had educated, appeared to him a change of so trifling an extent in principle, that it must follow in a very short time. If he looked upon the present measure as an isolated one, he should think the less highly of it, because he conceived that if they took the Roman Catholic priesthood, as at present, from the lower orders, and refined their minds by education, and then turned them out among the population in a position disgraceful for Christian ministers to be in, they would thereby render that priesthood more hostile to the Establishment, and more dangerous than at present. He had no right to assume what were the intentions of the right hon. Baronet opposite. It was not for him to say whether the right hon. Baronet intended to go further or not; but, when he saw a great foundation laid, he had a right to expect to see a vast edifice raised. In conclusion, he thanked the Government for the present measure, as well as for the measure respecting academical education in Ireland.
Mr. Godsonsaid, that having presented petitions against this measure, he was anxious to explain why he could not support their prayer. Having, as a Member

625
of Parliament, supported the Established Church in Ireland by always voting against the appropriation principle, it also became his duty to consider what might be fairly done for the benefit of the Roman Catholic population of that country. If the present measure had stood alone, he should have given it his support; but he viewed it in connexion with the Bequests Acts, and the Bill for the establishment of Colleges in Ireland; and he hoped to see Ireland rendered peaceable by having this justice done it, and that then the Colleges might all be bound together in one University. It was said that the present measure was objectionable on account of its endowment of the Roman Catholic religion. But this was no new principle; at least, if it was new in Ireland, it was not new in our Colonies. By a Return to Parliament in 1839 (the last that had been made) it appeared that in the small island of Jamaica, the ecclesiastical establishment cost 36,610 l. (of which sum 8,100 l. was paid by this country for the bishop, archdeacon, and seven clergymen) for the Church of England. But the Assembly also paid out of the public revenue for the Church of Scotland 683 l.; and for the Church of Rome 550 l. There was also by the same return 500 l. paid to the Wesleyan chapel; to the Baptist chapel, 600 l.; and to the Jews' synagogue, 1,000 l. Thus, the whole amount paid in one year out of the taxes collected in Jamaica was 31,843 l. He found that in the same year (1838) there was expended in the different Colonies the sum of 168,242 l., of which 14,763 l. was paid to the Roman Catholic clergymen; 14,763 l. being nearly one-tenth of the whole amount. Such being the state of the case, how could it be made a point of conscience not to do in Ireland that which they were accustomed to do in the Colonies? He believed that Her Majesty's Ministers, who had wisely brought in the present measure, would find, the more it was inquired into and debated, that the outcry at first raised against it would gradually subside, and that the good sense of the English people would ultimately perceive that, what seemed alarming in the beginning, was not of a nature justly to excite apprehension. He conceived that the measure would place the Roman Catholic priesthood in a proper position, and enable them to attend to the moral welfare of their communities. In this respect it was
626
a wise measure, and calculated to lead to peace; and he told those of his constituents and others who objected to the measure on the ground that it would extend the Roman Catholic Church and depress Protestantism, that it could not have that effect; but that it would lead to religious peace; and the consequence would be that they would see the day when all religious classes would be found living in harmony in Ireland, as they were in the different towns of England; the ministers of religion being solely occupied in attending to the discharge of their sacred functions. The Roman Catholic priest would then be what they must desire all spiritual guides to be — not subject, on account of his poverty, to his flock, whom he ought to guide and instruct, but rendered more independent of them, and therefore more useful to them; and under such circumstances they might then appropriately apply to him the beautiful lines of the poet:—
"And as a bird each fond endearment tries
To tempt its new-fledged offspring to the skies,
He tried each art, reprov'd each dull delay,
Allur'd to brighter worlds, and led the way."
Colonel Rawdonsaid: So many have been the speakers and so long the speeches, that till now I have had no opportunity of expressing the cordial concurrence of my Roman Catholic constituents and of the Roman Catholic Primate of all Ireland, who is one of them, with the measure now before us. Sir, I take this measure as an evidence of plain good intention—a principle which, Mr. Burke says, is of no mean force in the government of a people. I hail it as an attempt in part to efface the bitter recollection of bygone days, by the substitution of benign influence. And I think the Government is the more entitled to praise for the measure, because if we had urged it, the right hon. Baronet had a ready answer, and a perfect right to make use of it—that "you, the friends of Ireland, did not propose it." It is true we did not propose it—not because the necessity for it was not felt, but because from the state of parties then we could not have realized the proposition. And this reminds me of an expression used last night by the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard, which appeared to imply that in our support of the Minister, we somewhat lacked of grateful recollection towards those who had through bad and evil report fought the battle of Ireland. Sir, I beg he will not

627
include me in his list of the ungratefuls. I feel all that is due to the noble Lord and his associates below me; and I am proud to follow them, and they will not find me, at all events, deserting their ranks, unless I perceive the interests of Ireland compel me to do so. Were I then to remain with them, I am sure they would be the first to undervalue such support. Now, Sir, let me briefly call back the recollection of the House from this extraneous matter to the view taken of this measure on its introduction by the Minister. The view he took was the common sense view. He showed you that the grant was inadequate for its purpose—that the principle had been repeatedly sanctioned—that the state of the institution of Maynooth was calculated to engender bitter feelings in the breasts of those who were hereafter to influence the minds of millions, and that it would be a better (and I may add, a safer) policy to withdraw all State connexion with the institution, than to continue such connexion in a manner discreditable to both. Sir, this was a plain unvarnished tale: the colouring of the picture was not heightened by any lines of eloquence. He spoke the words of truth and earnestness. He enunciated a fact — a plain—fact—which many of us here had long been acquainted with, and he proposes his remedy, and asks you to consent to it. Are you still prepared to say no? Are you blind to the state of Ireland? Are you deaf to thr authoritative voice which recommends this Bill? It comes to you supported by all the leading and practical Statesmen of the day. It comes to you in accordance with the opinions of the Prime Ministers of the last twenty years, five of whom are now alive. It is recommended to you by those who have filled the office of Secretary for Ireland for nearly the last half-century, with the exception of him, I believe, who was Secretary in 1805 (Lord Bexley); and there are fifteen of these Secretaries now living. I ask again, will you refuse to profit by their experience—will you not take counsel, but will you rather prefer servilely to do the bidding of those who have not the means of enlightenment which you possess? Will you not remember that you are Irish Legislators as well as English—that this is a question affecting Irishmen only, excepting the money part of it, which is common to both? Will you not remember that if England is Protestant, Ireland is Catholic? If you will not—if your notions of truth so unreasons you—if you are determined to
628
prefer the prejudices of England to Imperial interests, on you, I say, shall rest the reponsibility. I refuse to share it. Sir, the hon. Member for Dorsetshire talked last night of our Protestant Constitution. What does this mean? Is not this House an essential element in that Constitution; and are not Roman Catholic Members here? Sir, the main safety of our Constitution is, that it is not a written one; its vitality comes from its elasticity. Thus you have Catholic institutions in Canada, and Presbyterianism in Scotland; and changes are made according to the spirit of each age, which hitherto have been adopted by the good sense of the people, in time to keep this Empire and its liberties in safety. Sir, that hon. Member made a significant allusion to what would be the spirit of the next Parliament, which I hope will not be lost upon the Prime Minister. He will see, if he wishes to preserve the Union, that he must ere long infuse largely of Irish spirit here, to preserve that Union from the attacks of the hon. Gentleman's Protestant pawns. Sir, the hon. Member for Dorset talks of the battle of the Boyne; and the hon. Member for Oxford talked, I recollect, of nailing his colour to the mast—terms militant, I must say, which apply but badly to a religion whose attribute is peace. The hon. Member for Birmingham says ridicule is not argument; but he must forgive me for saying, that it is hard to refrain from ridicule when he uses the argumentum ad absurdum. When, for instance, he conjures up the musty spirits of a Cavasurius to deter us from a practical and charitable act of legislation—and this, forsooth, he did when telling us that this House was no place for polemical discussion. But, Sir, I will leave him to enjoy that awful delusion under which the hon. Member for Liskeard told him he laboured. Now, Sir, I would wish to allude to the speech of the hon. Member for Honiton last night, a speech to which I listened with great attention and delight. The hon. Member for Honiton assures us that there is an increasing disposition on the part of the people of England to do entire justice to Ireland. I heard the sentiment, and the cheers which accompanied it, with great satisfaction; and I still cling to the hope; but honestly I confess to you that, day by day, this hope is becoming fainter. Sir, I have lately seen the Government of my noble Friend below me become weak and nearly powerless from its friendly disposition towards Ireland; and I have now

629
the spectacle of a hitherto all-powerful Minister struggling amidst the billows of anti-Catholic prejudice, and from which he can only be saved by the generous exertions and self-devotion of his political opponents. I see preparations making for a great struggle at the next general election. The religious sympathies of the English people are to be appealed to. Already the result is confidently predicted by the Member for Dorsetshire, to be a checkmate by the Protestant pawns of England to the liberal game on the Irish side of the board. This is the reason why I say my hope of justice for my country from you is becoming fainter. I say it with great reluctance. I see creeds drawing up in hostile array. I see Imperial legislators, men of great station in the ranks—I see them giving vent to their so-called Protestant, but which I must term antisocial effusions. I see them on their pinnacle of truth, regardless of prudential considerations, (and while they profess the kindest and most amiable motives,) proclaiming to their Roman Catholic fellow subjects that franchises municipal and parliamentary, that ameliorations in ecclesiastical arrangements, must be withheld as long as they continue under an "awful delusion." Now, Sir, in sadness I ask you, how is this to end? If the case were reversed, how would you end it? You would take the course that the spirit of freedom dictates to high spirited men. Is it wise thus to push matters? For God's sake, recollect that you represent Ireland as well as England, and, ere it be too late, I implore of you to learn to legislate on Irish matters with Irish feelings. I am convinced this is your only safe course. You must make up your minds, as we have before told you, and as the noble Lord the Member for Sunderland lately well repeated—you must make up your minds to legislate for Ireland as an Irish Parliament would legislate. Depend upon it, you cannot safely trifle with the state of Ireland. I know the depth of feeling that exists there; and I am here, in a really loyal and conservative spirit, to tell you that the same tone of debate which took place on the Catholic Emancipation Bill is unfitted to the time in which you live. If England is really thus to be arrayed against Ireland—if you are determined to resist this measure—if you are determined to persevere in this unhappy course—I tell you, in the words of Mr. Fox, "you should not presume to legislate for a people with whose wants, interests,
630
opinions, affections, and prejudices you have no sympathy;" and, in the words of a noble Lord on your own side of the House, I shall be reluctantly constrained to tell my countrymen—"Leave England to her Protestant integrity, take your affairs in your own hands, and do the best you can for yourselves."
Mr. Shawhad so frequently experienced the indulgence of the House on former stages of the Bill, and the question had already been so fully discussed, that he would then trespass but shortly on their attention. He would endeavour to avoid ground which had been before debated, and apply himself principally to the features and circumstances of the measure which had been developed in the course of its progress; more particularly to their bearings and indications as regarded the general policy of the Government towards Ireland. The scheme had been originally put forward by its promoters as little more than an addition to the annual grant to Maynooth, and the execution of a compact entered into by the Irish Parliament in 1795; but that position had been abandoned — in fact, it was no longer tenable. Not to touch upon the arguments of the opponents of the measure, he would take, in proof of his assertion, a leading authority from amongst its advocates on each side of the House. His right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Gladstone) described it as essentially a new measure, involving entirely new principles. The noble Lord the Member for London candidly and justly characterized it as differing both in degree and in kind from the relation which the State had previously borne to the College of Maynooth; and the noble Lord had correctly construed the Act of 1795, as an enabling Act to the Roman Catholics to found their own College, and to endow it from their own lands and money. It now appeared as if, when opportunity had been afforded to the Roman Catholics of Ireland to establish a College for their own priesthood, and that during the war, and while access to foreign education was peculiarly difficult, and even to the present day, Parliament kept propping up the system by annual contributions, so as to make that opportunity as ample and complete as possible; yet, that when the Roman Catholics of Ireland refused to avail themselves of it—not from want of liberality or of means, which never failed for objects

631
which they really desired to promote—the Government stepped in, as if determined to maintain the establishment at any cost, adopted it as their own, and, without regulation or restriction, placed it among the most favoured institutions of the country. He had before said that he doubted much whether, even upon the low ground of expediency taken by the supporters of the Bill, it would produce any real improvement in the College of Maynooth, unsupported, as he believed that institution would still be, by the Roman Catholic gentry of Ireland; while he himself would always rest his opposition on the principle, that by the permanent endowment of a seminary for the sole purpose of teaching the Roman Catholic religion within the limits of the United Kingdom, the Government were violating their solemn duty to the Crown and Constitution, which the fundamental laws under which England had reached its present eminence amongst the nations of the world required to be essentially Protestant. But to go to the policy of the measure as it affected Ireland. It was not its least evil, that it tended to unsettle all men's minds in Ireland. This was caused by the fears excited on one side—the hopes on the other—both possibly exaggerated — but still more, by the undefined promises and mysterious intimations with which the Government had introduced the Bill. He particularly alluded to the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department. That right hon. Gentleman spoke of this being but the commencement of a new system—the laying of the foundation of an entirely altered policy towards Ireland. What, then, was that to be? The right hon. Baronet had ostentatiously apologized for an expression he had used about two years ago, and when he had been for about as many administering the affairs of Ireland, namely, that concession to the Roman Catholics of Ireland had reached its limits. It was at all times manly and right to retract words if they were used in haste, and calculated to convey an erroneous impression; but that should be done at the earliest opportunity, and where there could be no suspicion of a motive having subsequently arisen. Instead of which the right hon. Baronet had immediately after the use of the words fully explained them, and as he (Mr. Shaw) had thought most intelligibly—not that the Govern-
632
ment would refuse to introduce any measure of practical improvement relating to Ireland, but that the Roman Catholics having been already placed on terms of equality in all civil matters with their Protestant fellow subjects, there remained nothing more to do in that direction by way of conciliation. What, then, were they to understand by the tardy and elaborate retraction of the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) after the lapse of two years from the time the words had been spoken and explained? There must be something more than met the eye. Was it that the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) desired to repudiate the policy which had been heretofore pursued by his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel)? The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had laboured hard to show that the whole Irish policy of the present Government had been directed by himself, and a noble Lord a Member of the Cabinet, not then in that House, Lord Stanley. Did the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) wish those who had long acted with his (Mr. Shaw's) right hon. Friend the First Minister of the Crown, and well knew that his right hon. Friend's object had been to do equal jusstice, to administer the laws impartially, and to grant the same civil rights to all parties in that country—were they now—to understand that either the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) denied that such had been the policy of his right hon. Colleague (Sir R. Peel), or that something more than that was now to be done? Was it that the Roman Catholics of Ireland were to infer from these statements, that they were no longer to be content with civil, but also to expect a perfect religious equality in point of law with the members of the Established Church in that country? Then, indeed, instead of pouring oil, they would be casting a deadly strife upon the troubled waters of Irish agitation—a new Catholic question—fraught with a bitterer acrimony, a more inflamed animosity, more intensely exciting in the ratio of their relative importance as a religious Catholic question, than was the old political Catholic question by which their country had been so long distracted, and from which it was only then beginning to enjoy repose. God help that unhappy country! They had little cause to put their trust in man. They were beginning to hope that all these irritating questions had been settled.

633
Men of different religious creeds were coming together with a desire to co-operate in matters of national improvement and of common interest. But it would seem they were to be again driven into religious disputations and party contentions, as if it were their doom that peace or rest should never be permitted them; but that disunion and discord were to be their everlasting destiny. He had always deplored the announcement of his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury, that Ireland would be his difficulty. It had been well observed, that to believe anything difficult or impossible was the surest way to make it so. Such predictions, too, had always a tendency to their own fulfilment. They suggested weakness. They invited attack; and he (Mr. Shaw) verily believed that much of the annoyance and evil of the monster meetings and State prosecutions in Ireland was induced by that declaration. He confessed that for his own part, he had never regarded the policy pursued in respect of the monster meetings at first, or the State prosecutions after, a judicious one; but he would not dwell on that point then. There was one thing, however, which he was bold to affirm, and that was, that when his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel) came into office, there was no portion of his party more ready and anxious than the great majority of his Irish supporters to co-operate with him in a truly conciliatory course of Irish policy, tempering firmness, in the administration of the laws, with the utmost moderation; holding a perfectly equal balance between all parties, and preferring no man, in regard to civil office, on account of his religious creed. He was well aware that many, perhaps on his own side of the House even, would be disinclined to agree with him in that assertion. They themselves thought Ireland a great difficulty; they did not know it—they would not learn it—they pushed it from them, and lent too ready an ear to every injurious report affecting it. Still he made the assertion most sincerely and advisedly. There were few, perhaps, who would be so indisposed to admit as the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department. It would be at variance with and upset his whole system of governing Ireland. He should have been very sorry, he should have felt hurt indeed, had his right hon. Friend (Sir R.
634
Peel) attributed to him that he (Mr. Shaw) would have desired to see Ireland governed on what the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had designated as the old principles of Protestant ascendancy. His right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel) had really known his sentiments; and however it might be his misfortune to differ on any particular point from his right hon. Friend, even though they might be altogether divided on politics, or sit at different sides of the House—still he could never do otherwise than appreciate his right hon. Friend's good opinion, and entertain for him a feeling, his right hon. Friend must allow him to say, of affectionate esteem. He owned that he was comparatively indifferent to the opinion of the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham). His views of Irish policy were, of course, of very little importance to the right hon. Baronet. The right hon. Baronet had honoured him (Mr. Shaw) with the appellation of Friend, only sufficiently long to qualify him for, and give zest to the right hon. Baronet's subsequent sarcasm; but still he was at a loss to know upon what grounds the right hon. Baronet had a right to assume that he wished to see the old system of Protestant ascendancy restored. He had always been favourable to the removal of political disabilities from his Roman Catholic countrymen; he had not a seat in the House in 1829, but his father had lost his seat there a short time before for voting in favour of the Roman Catholic claims. He was sorry to trouble the House with matter personal to himself; but after the insinuations of the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham), he not only desired to stand right with the House, but the whole policy of the government of Ireland was so completely drawn into question in the debates upon the present measure, that he trusted a short reference to it would not be considered out of place. It could scarcely have been from his conduct during the proceedings upon the Irish Corporation Bill—the only measure upon which he had had any great intercourse with the right hon. Baronet—that the right hon. Baronet could have supposed him influenced by the principles of Protestant ascendancy. He took the course he pursued in reference to that measure, because he thought it the right one. Still he was quite aware what would be the consequences—that the settlement of the ques-

635
tion would smooth the way to office for the right hon. Baronet; and that the humble part he took in passing it would risk, as it had done, his own seat in that House, and lose him some of the earliest and dearest friendships of his life. It could scarcely have been during the discussions on the Irish Arms Bill, that the right hon. Baronet had discovered his (Mr. Shaw's) leanings to Protestant ascendancy—when he had warned the right hon. Baronet that much time, and trouble, and temper were expended upon a measure much more likely to be vexatious than useful; and he believed that there were few magistrates or other official persons who had since been engaged in the administration of that law, who would not now characterize that measure in the same manner. He had plainly told the right hon. Baronet what he thought—that under the right hon. Baronet's administration of Irish affairs, the so-called Irish Government was little more than a mockery, having, indeed, much of the responsibility, but none of the power of the Executive; and that the real and unpolitical business of Ireland was not permitted to be done out of the Home Office, and was neglected in it—necessarily it might be from the immense pressure of other business, but still in fact neglected; and he gladly seized the opportunity before his right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland (Sir T. Fremantle) entered upon his duties in that country, and before, therefore, it was possible the objection could assume anything of a character personal to his right hon. Friend, for whom he had the greatest regard, to assure his right hon. Friend (Sir T. Fremantle) that, while he might nominally be the Minister for that country, he would find himself really but a clerk to the Home Office. He might be right or wrong in that opinion; but at all events he could see nothing in it of Protestant ascendancy. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had enumerated several names of persons appointed to offices in Ireland, which could scarcely be held by other than local professional men, and would have that considered as a great compliment and boon to Irishmen; and the right hon. Baronet had selected the names according to his usual fashion, with a view of raising a cheer against his own Friends. When he (Mr. Shaw) had alluded to that subject, his objection was entirely a national, and in no degree a
636
party one. He wished it to be neither personal to individuals, nor peculiar to Governments, whether Whig or Tory. He was a very young man when Mr. Canning was supposed to have nominated Lord Plunket to a second-rate judicial office in this country, and that the appointment was not completed in consequence of a general remonstrance against it from the English bar; and he confessed that from that day to this, he had never heard of the appointment of an English Chancellor to Ireland without blushing as an Irishman, and deploring, as he had stated on a former occasion, that party distractions had suppressed the spirit of a sound professional independence in that country. He, from his peculiar position, could make the observation with less possibility of the suspicion of a personal motive, than perhaps any other individual connected with the profession. If he chose to mention names—but he would rather avoid the invidious task—he could, without the slightest reference to religious or party distinctions, demonstrate to every Irishman on either side of the House, who knew anything of the profession in Ireland, the truth of what he had formerly stated, that professional appointments had been influenced rather by considerations of a spurious liberality, than by a regard to the character of the profession, or the interests of the Irish public. The right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) had mentioned one name in connexion with an inferior office; and that man having remained still in that inferior office was one proof that the principle he (Mr. Shaw) had been deprecating, was acted upon by the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham). That party was still to be played against party in that country, was illustrated in the very speech of the right hon. Baronet to which he was alluding, the right hon. Baronet crying out at one moment "Protestant ascendancy," to gain the cheers of the Roman Catholics; then "Conciliation Hall," as a bugbear wherewith to frighten the Protestants. It was not so easy to frighten or deceive them as the right hon. Baronet seemed to think. He had employed the simple language of truth, and not of threatening, when he declared that if the Government alarmed the Protestants of Ireland for the safety of their Church, they would raise a general spirit of discontent amongst them, without in the smallest degree conciliat-

637
ing the vast bodies which were swayed by the popular leaders in that country; and of the latter branch of the proposition the Government had since then been afforded abundant evidence. But upon that point he might have gone further; and in cautioning those who demanded the subversion of the Established Church in Ireland against adding strength to the cause of the Repealers, used not his own language, but that of authorities no way liable to be suspected either of tendencies to repeal on the one hand, or political partisanship with him (Mr. Shaw) on the other; one, a Roman Catholic of eminence—Mr. Blake, who gave his solemn evidence that the Protestant Church Establishment was the main link in the connexion between Great Britain and Ireland; another, Lord Plunket, the most distinguished advocate of the Roman Catholic claims, who, in his emphatic style, had told them that if ever the day arrived when the Parliament should lay its hands upon the property of the Irish Established Church, or rob it of its rights, that the same moment would seal the doom of the Union, and terminate the connexion between the two countries. On this point the Government would do well to reflect upon one fact, and it was this—the overwhelming majority of those who had voted on that measure, for and against it, whose votes were influenced by the conviction that the measure, as proposed by the Government, was caculated to injure the Established Church in Ireland. Depend upon it, destroy the Irish branch of that Church, and the English would not long survive it. One word more of warning, and he was done. Let the junction of voluntaries and latitudinarians succeed in severing the Protestant Establishments of religion in the United Kingdom from the State, and with the connexion would perish the character, the happiness, and the prosperity of this great country.
Mr. Milnes Gaskelldenied that the present Government, or their supporters, were liable to any charge of inconsistency for the course which they had pursued upon this Bill. He saw that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay) entertained a different opinion; but he (Mr. Gaskell) must venture to dissent from it. For himself, at least, he could most truly say that no vote which he had ever given in that House had been actuated by a spirit of intolerance
638
or unkindness towards his Roman Catholic fellow subjects. It was true, indeed, that he had opposed the Irish policy of the late Administration; but he had done so from no feeling of hostility to the Catholics, but because he had believed—whether rightly or wrongly was not now the question—that the direct tendency of that policy was to increase the power of the democratic leaders in Ireland; and because he had felt persuaded that that power would not be exercised for the real benefit of the people. He had never impugned the motives of those from whom he differed in opinion, and only claimed for himself the credit which he gave to others. He would now shortly state, with the permission of the House, the grounds of his assent to this proposal. In the first place, he avowed at once that that assent was not founded upon any compact, either expressed or implied, which might have been entered into by the Legislature of this country at the period of the Union. He believed that there had been such a compact—he believed that the spirit of that compact was still binding upon the Legislature—but his vote was mainly founded on other considerations; and he should be perfectly ready to support this Bill in the absence of any such engagement. Now, what were the main facts of the case with which the Government and Parliament had to deal? No man disputed that the great majority of the people of Ireland were of the Roman Catholic persuasion: no man, he believed, disputed that they were likely to remain so. Undoubtedly, if the proportion of Protestants and Roman Catholics could be regulated by the mere expression of a wish, the great majority of that House would much prefer that the present numbers should be inverted, and that the religion of the minority should be the prevailing, as well as the established faith. But the question was not what they might desire—not even what they would do—if Ireland were a "tabula rasa" on which they were free to mould and model whatever scheme of ecclesiastical polity they preferred, but what was the actual condition of affairs? and what was it likely to remain for any period of legislation which that House could contemplate? Surely, it was not the part of wise and prudent men to discuss this question as if the Roman Catholics of Ireland were only a small minority of the population—a mere sect dissenting from the Established Church. And if Parliament felt a real desire to im-

639
prove the character and elevate the condition of the people, he (Mr. Gaskell) was at a loss to understand how Gentlemen could hope to effect that object so long as they shut their eyes to that which constituted the main feature of the question—namely, to the fact that the great majority of the people did not belong to the Established Church. He owned he did not see how it was possible to obtain access to that great majority of the people, except through the ministers of their own persuasion; and therefore he would improve Maynooth as the only practicable means of improving the education of the people. Then, no man would dispute that all the weight which attached to the influence of great names was in favour of this measure—that the course of authority ran in one uniform stream upon this subject—that every public man, without exception, who had been a guide or an ornament to the last generation, had expressed opinions that would have carried him still further than this Bill. No man would dispute this, as regarded the most distinguished of those who had sat upon the benches opposite — the great Whig leaders from Mr. Fox downwards; but it was equally true of Mr. Burke, Mr. Windham, and Lord Grenville—of the great Tory Minister, Mr. Pitt, and the most illustrious of his immediate disciples and followers, Mr. Canning. It was just forty years ago, a few months only before his death, that Mr. Pitt had expressed the following opinion. He said—
"His idea had been not to apply tests to the religious tenets of the Catholics, but tests applicable to what was the source and foundation of the evil; to render the priests, instead of making them the instruments of poisoning the minds of the people, dependent in some sort upon the Government, and thus links, as it were, between the Government and the people. That would have been a wise and a comprehensive system; that would have been the system which he should have felt it to be his wish, and thought it to have been his duty, to have proposed."
In a debate upon the Catholic question, two years before his death, Mr. Canning had expressed a similar opinion. On the 21st of April, 1825, in referring to a proposal which had been made some time before by the noble Lord the Member for South Lancashire (Lord F. Egerton), Mr. Canning said—
"That with respect to the principle of that measure, it was one which had been in contemplation long ago—in the time of Mr. Pitt;
640
that it had, therefore, authority which he highly respected in its favour; and that nothing which he had heard in the course of the debate had altered that favourable impression. The objection that the Protestant part of the community would thus be taxed in order to raise the funds in question, might be met by asking whether the Catholics did not contribute to the taxes out of which the Regium Donum to a portion of the Dissenting Protestant Church in Ireland was yearly paid."
He (Mr. Gaskell) would only trouble the House with one more extract. It was a short passage contained in a letter from Mr. Burke to the father of the right hon. and learned Gentleman below him, the Attorney General for Ireland; and no man, he apprehended, even at Exeter Hall, would venture to charge Mr. Burke with having been an insincere Protestant or a latitudinarian. Mr. Burke said—
"His humble and decided opinion was, that the three religions prevalent more or less in various parts of these islands, ought all, in subordination to the legal establishments, to be countenanced, protected, cherished; and that in Ireland, particularly, the Roman Catholic religion should be upheld in high respect and veneration, and should be provided with the means of making it a blessing to the people who profess it: that it ought to be cherished as a good, not tolerated as an inevitable evil"
Such had been the doctrine held by Mr. Burke; and in his (Mr. Gaskell's) opinion, it was most important that the people of this country should be disabused of the impression that this was a contest between rival creeds; and that they should be reminded of the views which had been entertained by those illustrious men to whose authority, in their cooler moments, they were most wont to look with affection and respect. He knew that no argument, whether derived from compact, from authority, or from considerations of general policy, had any force when addressed to those who objected to this measure on religious grounds, and who were represented in that House by his hon. Friend the Member for Kent (Mr. Plumptre), and those who thought with him. He (Mr. Gaskell) had every respect for the motives of those Gentlemen; his only surprise was, not that they should be opposed to this grant, but that they should have consented to retain their seats in that House after the admission of Roman Catholic Gentlemen to seats in Parliament. But he understood their arguments; though he agreed with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. C. Buller) in thinking that they had greater weight

641
when directed against the Act of Union, and the Act of Emancipation, than against the Bill which was now before the House. He confessed, however, that he had never been able to understand upon what principle Gentlemen who had contentedly acquiesced in the former grant, had taken such umbrage at the increase that was now proposed. Surely, if 9,000 l. had been the sum voted by an exclusive Protestant Parliament in 1795—if a Parliament constituted with the precise object of excluding three-fourths of the population had been the parties to originate this grant, the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which had removed all civil disabilities from the Catholics, could hardly object, upon the score of principle, to make it more commensurate with the altered circumstances of Ireland. The language, indeed, that was used upon this subject out of doors would make men suppose that the people of this country were called upon to abandon their own religion, instead of only to suffer others to be instructed in theirs. This Bill did not seek to violate the conscience of any man—it did not take one shilling from the Established Church—it did not deprive the Established Church of one single privilege or immunity—it only asked the people of England not to grudge the additional expenditure of a few thousand pounds for an object which for fifty years their Representatives had sanctioned—it asked them to remember that they were not the only parties who were called upon to pay taxes—and it asked them to allow the people of Ireland to receive back from a common fund a small portion of what they had themselves contributed. He owned that, for one, he deeply regretted the invectives that were so often uttered against the religion of the Catholics. He was satisfied that if they wished to promote the growth of Protestantism in Ireland, they could not take a course more likely to defeat that object than the one of marking upon all occasions that they entertained feelings of distrust and of hostility towards the religion of the Irish people. He was convinced that so far from weakening its hold upon their affections by such means, they would be taking the surest course to rivet and confirm it. He wished that ministers of religion in this country, whether those who represented what he believed to be a minority of the Established Church, or those who represented what he feared was a great majority of the Dissenting body, would cease to anathematize so large a portion of
642
their fellow Christians; that they would look more to their points of agreement with the Catholics, and less to those of difference—remembering that they were both worshippers of the same God, and ought to perform the duties of fellow countrymen and fellow subjects, without the heart-burnings and the jealousies which had so unhappily been evoked and fostered on this occasion.
"Carior est Divis homo quam sibi,"
was a lesson taught by the great heathen satirist; and, in his (Mr. Gaskell's) opinion, it was one by which many of the petitioners against this Bill would do well to profit. But, above all, he trusted that whatever might be the conduct of other parties, the Members of that House would at least discharge their duty without favour and without fear; that they would labour, with whatever temporary ill success, to "knit together the hearts and minds of all descriptions of men within these realms." He trusted they would recollect that they were not sent to that House to re-echo the fleeting wishes or prejudices of their constituents, much less the angry passions of polemics, but the real and enduring interests of this great Empire. He (Mr. Gaskell) believed that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government was making a great attempt to combine two objects which had hitherto been disunited in the policy of former Governments—a fixed determination to uphold and vindicate the law, together with an equal determination not to withhold measures of just conciliation from the Irish people. In the pursuit of the former object the right hon. Baronet had been supported by a large majority of that House. He (Mr. Gaskell) trusted that in the pursuit of the second, he would be equally successful. He trusted they would not proclaim to the people of Ireland that such was the bitterness of religious discord in this country that the attempt to combine both those objects must prove abortive, and that no minister could hope to retain the confidence of a great party, unless he was prepared to govern Ireland on principles of intolerance and proscription. It was said that this Bill would not satisfy the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. O'Connell) and others, but only prove the parent of fresh demands. He (Mr. Gaskell) had no expectation, he had not even the wish that it should satisfy those whose undisguised and avowed aim was the dismemberment of the Empire. But such, as he

643
understood it, was not the object of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman sought only to conciliate and to attach the moderate and reflecting portion of the Roman Catholic body, whose co-operation and support were of such immense importance to the cause of peace and good government in Ireland. If he (Sir R. Peel) should be successful in that object, he would be amply compensated for all the obloquy, all the clamour, and all the misrepresentation to which he had been exposed. In conclusion, he (Mr. Gaskell) would remind the House that this was not one of those extorted concessions, whose fruits were so often bitter, and which contained within themselves the seeds of so much future discontent. It was an act of grace and justice brought forward by Her Majesty's Ministers in the spirit and in the hope of peace. He trusted that that House would take advantage of the opportunity which was thus afforded them—that they would make this concession willingly, and make it now—that in the beautiful language of Mr. Canning, they might at least make this glorious moment irrevocably their own:—
—"Non tamen irritum
Quodcunque retro est efficiet, neque
Diffinget infectumque reddet
Quod fugiens semel hora vexit."
Mr. Bellewrose, as a Catholic Member, principally to express his opinion on the Irish Church question. He entertained great respect for that portion of the population of Ireland who were Protestants. Though they constituted numerically a comparatively small proportion of the population, they were generally well educated; they occupied respectable positions in society; and from these circumstances they had attained much greater weight in the country than, in the proper order of things, they were entitled to. But he believed that an act of spoliation with respect to church property in Ireland had been committed in its being originally wrested from the Catholics. He considered also that, if that property were now taken altogether from the Protestants, another act of spoliation would be committed; but he believed it was matter of certainty that before many years elapsed some adjustment of that property must take place. He regarded the Bill now before the House as a most important step in that series of measures which were necessary to conciliate and tranquillize Ireland, and to promote the prosperity of this kingdom. By this
644
measure they would carry to every farmhouse in Ireland a conviction of the care of the State for the clergy of the Catholic Church. Every man in Ireland who had a friend or a relative at Maynooth would feel that his religion was no longer proscribed, but that it held a place in the care and attention of the State. Indeed, he could not conceive any single measure which would be more satisfactory to the whole mass of the Catholic population. In the course of the debate on this Bill, some taunts had been thrown out against the religion of Roman Catholics. He considered that attacks of that kind, in a House where the proportion of Protestant Members as compared with Catholics was twenty to one, were most ungracious; and he would venture to say that those charges were unfounded. The Government, in proposing measures of this nature, would undoubtedly have to encounter much violent opposition; but he could assure them they would carry with them the feelings of a large and most important interest in Ireland, as well as in this country and in Scotland; and they would eventually find that, in pursuing their present policy, they had adopted that course which was most advantageous to the interests of the Empire.
Sir R. H. Inglissaid, that in the whole course of the hundred hours' debate which had taken place upon this subject, there was scarcely one single point which remained undiscussed. Having already experienced the indulgence of the House, he should not ask their attention to-night if he had not felt that when there were calls for a division, it would not perhaps be deemed unbecoming, as he had taken a prominent part in this discussion from the beginning, if he then rose for the purpose of preventing this question from coming to a final division without endeavouring, for the last time, to recall to the attention of the House some of those views to which their attention had indeed been already directed. No man now contended, as it was contended by some hon. Members in an earlier part of this discussion, that there was any compact, direct or implied, entered into in relation to this grant, by which the nation was bound to maintain the College of Maynooth, and still less to increase the grant as it was now proposed. His right hon. Friend at the commencement of the discussion had stated, that there were three courses open to them; one of which was, the abandonment of the College alto-

645
gether; and no person could, therefore, contend that they were bound to maintain that which they were at liberty to abandon. Some hon. Members called such a measure as this policy, others expediency; but by whatever name it might be called—take it even as charity, as it had been characterized by his right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland—take it as fear, as it was described by the hon. and gallant Member for Marylebone—call it sympathy with the great majority of the people of Ireland, or as a moral obligation, which they were told had induced Her Majesty's Ministers to propose it, and which should induce this House to acquiesce in it—take it in any shape—he could not change that opinion which in the first instance he had expressed upon the subject. He thought that, while this measure would have the effect of alienating the affections of the Protestants of Ireland, it would fatally fail in conciliating the Roman Catholics of that country. He knew he might be told that he had no right to assume that the majority of the Protestants of Ireland, and, still less, of the Empire, was opposed to the measure; and that the opposition to it in England was only that of a few Dissenters, and a small proportion of the members of the the Established Church. He, however, believed that the great mass of the people of England was directly opposed to the measure; and that, so far from its conciliating the Roman Catholics of Ireland, they will consider it as one which ought to be rejected by them as an insult, while it would have the effect of arousing the Protestant feeling of that country. They talked of exciting creed against creed; but whose fault was that? Who had originated the discussion? They would raise a Protestant feeling in Ireland which had slumbered for a time, and which might never have been evoked except by a measure like this; which had enkindled again a flame which was smouldering in its own ashes, but which might now break out to a degree of intensity which no man could pretend to measure the violence of. He was aware that there had not been in the present instance such large assemblies of the clergy of the Church of England, acting in their corporate capacity, as on former occasions, in reference to Roman Catholic Emancipation; but he had himself presented a large number of parochial petitions, out of which, so far as he could recollect, there had been only one in which the
646
name of the minister, the rector, or vicar, was not the first signature inscribed. He had presented a large number from archdeaconries and deaneries in this country; and so far from its being correct that the clergy of the Church of England were lukewarm on this subject, if any one took the trouble to examine the list of Parliamentary Petitions, it would be found that the clergy of the Church of England were always to be found occupied, and assisting their congregations in resisting every measure which they considered contrary to the truth and the maintenance of that religion which was committed to their charge. But they were told that they should not be united with their Dissenting brethren on such a measure as this. He, however, for one, was not ashamed, and never would be ashamed, of that which constituted his common designation with them — Protestantism. On that he relied. He would not suffer it to be said, without a direct contradiction from himself, that Protestantism was something vague and indefinite—something of a negative character. He knew what it was considered in the understandings of the great body of the people. It was held to be the restoration and revival of the truth of the Gospel which took place three centuries ago. On such revival the great body of the people rested their hopes of salvation; and their faith was held sacred to them by the lives, the sufferings, and the deaths of martyrs three centuries ago. And no man who knew the value of this religion, and the comforts of it to his conscience, could fail to recognise the sufficient grounds which they had for that anxiety which was now manifested when these truths were in jeopardy. He had been individually attacked with presumption for the course he had taken. The hon. and learned Member for Bath had attacked him as being guilty of great and grievous presumption, to say that he would not pay any man for preaching anything which he did not believe to be true; as if whatever he believed, and nothing else, were true. The learned Doctor opposite, also, in a tone of exultation, attacked him as if he had assumed a position that was unbecoming him or any man in that House. He, however, would not do that learned Gentleman the injustice of supposing that, if they had understood each other, he would then make it a matter of reproach to him and others, that that religion which he would not teach to his own child he would be willing to have taught

647
to strangers, even in the extreme parts of the world. If he believed this religion to be false, he would not teach it to his child; and if he believed it to be false, he must not encourage the teaching of it to strangers. He had great respect for conscientious persons who differed from him in opinion; but he would not, out of such a respect for the opinions of others, suffer himself to be led into a compromise of the oath which he had taken at the Table of the House for the preservation of the Protestant religion as by law established. As Christianity was part and parcel of the law of England, so the Church of England was a part of the Constitution. It was not one of many sects tolerated; it was the truth, which the State, as such, recognised. If so, the present Bill was a Bill for the teaching of error—of error declared to be such by the State at the Reformation. So much for the conduct of the nation. Then as to the conduct of individuals: he had already replied, in reference to the taunt, that he would never voluntarily be a party to the inculcation of anything which he did not himself believe. In reply to another taunt from another quarter, namely, "how could he, then, ask other members to vote for Church extension, in support of an Establishment to which they might individually be opposed, when he himself refused to grant anything in aid of their teaching?"—he had to this also already adverted. He supported the Church of England, because he believed it to be the truth; but he held all other Englishmen bound to support it by public money, if needful, because it was a national establishment, which, like all other national establishments, must be supported in full efficiency at the national expense. [A cry of "Question."] He was sorry to detain the House, but he had been taken somewhat by surprise tonight. Indeed, a quarter of an hour before, he had not the slightest idea that he should have been called on to take the part which he had to-night taken in this debate. But he was impressed with the idea that, however unworthily he had opposed the measure already by his vote, he was imperatively called upon to re-assert his principles in this last stage of their proceedings, and could not consistently avoid resisting the Bill once more with his voice. He could not conceal from himself a conviction that the position of his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government was one of the most singular
648
responsibility. He had become responsible, by the part which he had taken, for every measure which had emanated from the Legislature for the last quarter of a century, whether it were for good or for evil, with the exception of the Reform Bill and its corollary, the Municipal Reform Act. Everything which had been done by the Legislature for at least the last twenty years, had been effected either by him as a Minister, or through his active interference even when in general opposition; and the merit or demerit of each measure must belong to his right hon. Friend, including the Acts which passed for the great reforms effected in the Common Law, the results of the Ecclesiastical Commission, and the consequent reforms which took place in the Church. The Poor Law—["Hear!"] He replied to that ironical cheer, that he was not there either to praise or to blame those measures, but only to argue from their importance how great and awful was the political responsibility of his right hon. Friend. Alluding to the vast power which his right hon. Friend wielded, he would ask whether it would have been possible for the Whig Government to have carried any of their measures if it had not been for the intervention of his right hon. Friend?—he meant that sort of intervention which rendered him responsible for the success of the particular measure. Recalling to his recollection the memorable protest of the Duke of Wellington, in the other House, against the measure for the annexation and union of the two Legislatures of Upper and Lower Canada, he would ask whether, if his right hon. Friend had acted with his party and the Duke of Wellington, that measure would ever have been carried? The same observation might be applied to the sanction which his right hon. Friend had given to one memorable provision of the Municipal Reform Bill, even against his own party in the House of Lords; he meant, the Lords provision for continuing to aldermen their offices for life, and thus preventing the now annual election. He would still remind them of the awful power his right hon. Friend exercised in those respects—a power never exceeded, perhaps never equalled, by any Minister before him. Who else could ever have expected to carry the measure now before the House? Could his noble Friend the Member for London, who possessed, perhaps, more generally the personal confidence of those around him than any other

649
leading man of the day, have proposed such a measure without a certainty of being defeated? In immediate reference to the religious character of this measure, the great distinction he would observe in the present time as compared with the past was this—that there was a marked encouragement to the Church of Rome displayed by the present Government whenever it had it in its power to bestow it, whether at home or abroad—["at Oxford!"] The opinions of the University of Oxford were only to be taken from the decrees pronounced in Convocation. There had appeared in the Paper of their proceedings a Notice of a Bill which he had thought had passed that House some years ago—a Bill with the title of "Roman Catholic Relief Bill." He had thought that in the year 1829 the Roman Catholic Relief Bill had passed into a law. The object of the present Bill was to repeal the Protective and Conservative portions of the Bill of 1829; and to legalize the introduction of monasteries and monastic orders. The Bill had been brought in without any opposition from the Government, and had now been nearly three months on the Table of the House. He regretted to say that the Roman Catholic Church was receiving the most direct encouragement, both at home and abroad. In the year 1797, a University was established in the province of Canada, for the purpose of maintaining the Protestant Church there established; and, in support of that University, 222,973 acres of land were granted. [A laugh.] He hardly knew whether the laugh of the hon. Member for Kerry were directed against the credulity of those who supposed that such a grant could have been made with a bonâ fide intention of continuing it, or whether it were meant as a mark of contempt for those who believed that the Government would be willing to continue it. But, however, that might be, Her Majesty's Government had taken the advice of the hon. Member, or perhaps the advice of his great namesake in religion and in policy, and they had, through their Governor General in Canada, brought in a Bill for taking from that Protestant University that property which was vested in it by their predecessors for the permanent support of the Church of England in Canada; and by a majority of eleven they had recently decided that the property should be transferred from the Protestant Church University, to a University the distinguish-
650
ing feature of which was that there should be no religious instruction, test, or tenet in that University. Was he not justified in saying that, abroad and in England, and, also, as the present measure indicated, in Ireland, there was a systematic discouragement of the Protestant Church of England, and an encouragement of that rival Church from which the Church of England came forth? Believing that the present measure was only part of a great scheme to carry out that principle, he had opposed it even more than he should have done had he regarded it as a single insulated measure. Other Members of the Government had allowed themselves to say that this was an instalment of the debt already due; but so long as the right hon. Baronet at the head of Her Majesty's Government did not say that it was an instalment, that it was not the commencement of a new system, he should indulge the hope that, however bad the measure might be in itself, it was not necessarily and on principle foreseen to be bad in its consequences. If, indeed, he looked to no other consequences than the excitement which this measure had produced, he felt certain that no Minister would venture in the present generation the introduction of any ulterior measures having for their object the endowment of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland. It had been said that England was no longer to be regarded as an exclusively Protestant country; but so long as the Declaration, which the Sovereign of England was required to make as the first act of the Reign, remained unaltered and unrepealed, England would not cease to be, in the person of Her Sovereign, the great organ of protesting against the doctrines of the Church of Rome in Europe. He, therefore, heard with regret the remarks which had fallen from his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department the other night on the subject of this Declaration. No words could fall from the right hon. Baronet on such a subject to which the Protestants of England would not look with deep and anxious attention. They would draw from a slight whisper on his part conclusions unfavourable to the maintenance of this security for the integrity of the Protestantism of the Constitution. He trusted that no encouragement would be given to any qualification of that Declaration; and that they would not compromise in the slightest degree that great security which the people of England had in the Protestant

651
character of its Sovereign; and that nothing would be done calculated to violate the remaining securities of the Protestant Constitution. Believing that this measure was had in itself, he should continue to give it the same full and determined opposition which he gave to it when it was first announced on the part of Her Majesty's Government.
Colonel Vernermoved the adjournment of the debate.
The House divided:—Ayes 106; Noes 180: Majority 74.

List of the AYES.

Acton, Col.

Heathcoat, J.

Allix, J. P.

Henley, J. W.

Archbold, R.

Hindley, C.

Archdall, Capt. M.

Hobhouse, Sir J.

Bankes, G.

Howard, Sir R.

Bateson, T.

Hughes, W. B.

Barnard, Visct.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Blackstone, W. S.

Jervis, J.

Blewitt, R. J.

Johnson, Gen.

Boyd, J.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Bright, J.

Kirk, P.

Brocklehurst, J.

Labouchere, H.

Brotherton, J.

Law, C. E.

Browne W.

Layard, Capt.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Lefroy, A.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Loftus, Visct.

Buckley, E.

Lopes, Sir R.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Lowther, Col.

Butler, P. S.

Maclean, D.

Chetwode, Sir J.

M'Taggart, Sir J.

Cole, H. A.

Manners, Lord J.

Colquhoun, J. C.

Masterman, J.

Connolly, Col.

Matheson, J.

Cowper, W. F.

Maxwell, J. P.

Craig, W. G.

Milnes, R. M.

Crawford, W. S.

Morris, D.

Curteis, H. B.

Muntz, G. F.

Darby, G.

Murphy, F. S.

Dawson, T. V.

Neeld, J.

D'Eyncourt, C. T.

Newport, Visct.

Dickinson, F. H.

O'Brien, J.

Douglas, J. D. S.

Palmer, G.

Duncombe, T.

Palmerston, Visct.

Dundas, Adm.

Plumptre, J. P.

Ebrington, Visct.

Protheroe, E.

Etwall, R.

Rashleigh, W.

Feilden, W.

Russell, Lord J.

Filmer, Sir E.

Ryder, G. D.

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.

Seymour, Lord

Forman, T. S.

Shaw, H. F.

Fox, S. L.

Shelburne, Earl of

Goring, C.

Smith, A.

Grey, Sir G.

Smyth, Sir H.

Grimsditch, T.

Somers, J. P.

Grogan, E.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Hamilton, J. H.

Spooner, R.

Hamilton, G. A.

Spry, Sir S. T.

Hempden, R.

Tancred, H. W.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Taylor, E.

Hawes, B.

Tollemache, J.

652

Tyrell Sir J. T.

Wyse, T.

Vane, Lord H.

Vyvian, Sir R. R.

TELLERS.

Waddington, H. S.

Verner, Col.

White, S.

Ffolliott, J.

List of the NOES.

Acheson, Visct.

Entwisle, W.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Escott, B.

Acland, T. D.

Esmonde, Sir T.

A'Court, Capt.

Farnham, E. B.

Ainsworth, P.

Ferguson, Col.

Aldam, W.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Arkwright, G.

Fitzroy, H.

Arundel, Earl of

Flower, Sir J.

Austen, Col.

Forbes, W.

Baillie, Col.

Forster, M.

Baine, W.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Baird, W.

Gardner, J. D.

Bannerman, A.

Gaskell, J. M.

Barclay, D.

Gibson, T. M.

Barkly, H.

Gill, T.

Baring, T.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Baring, W. B.

Gordon, Capt.

Beckett, W.

Gore, M.

Bell, J.

Gore, R.

Bellew, R. M.

Graham, Sir J.

Blake, Sir V.

Granby, Marq, of

Blakemore, R.

Granger, T. C.

Bodkin, W. H.

Greene, T.

Boldero, H. G.

Hale, R. B.

Bowles, Adm.

Halford, Sir H.

Bowring, Dr.

Hamilton, W. J.

Brisco, M.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Bruce, Lord E.

Harris, Capt.

Buller, E.

Hastie, A.

Cardwell, E.

Hatton, Capt. V.

Carew, W. H. P.

Heneage, E.

Cavendish, C. C.

Herbert, S.

Chapman, B.

Heron, Sir R.

Childers, J. W.

Hervey, Lord A.

Clay, Sir W.

Hinde, J. H.

Clayton, R. R.

Hollond, R.

Clerk, Sir G.

Hope, C.

Clive, Visct.

Horsman, E.

Clive, R. H.

Howard, C. W. G.

Cobden, R.

Howard, E. G. G.

Cockburn, Sir G.

Hume, J.

Colborne, Sir G.

Hutt, W.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Ingestre, Visct.

Collett, J.

James, Sir W. C.

Collins, W.

Jermyn, Earl

Colvile, C. R.

Jocelyn, Visct.

Compton, H. C.

Lambton, H.

Corbally, M. E.

Lemon, Sir C.

Corry, H.

Lennox, Lord A.

Courtenay, Lord

Lincoln, Earl of

Cripps, W.

Listowel, Earl of

Davies, D. A. S.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Deedes, W.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Denison, W. J.

Macnamara, Major

Dennistoun, J.

M'Geachy, F. A.

Douro, Marq. of

M'Neill, D.

Drummond, H. H.

Mahon, Visct.

Duncan, Visct.

Martin, J.

Duncan, G.

Martin, C. W.

Du Pre, C. G.

Martin, T. B.

653

Mitcalfe, H.

Stanley, E.

Mitchell, T. A.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Morgan, C.

Stanton, W. H.

Morison, Gen.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Murray, A.

Stewart, J.

Neville, R.

Stuart, W. V.

O'Connell, M. J.

Stuart, H.

O'Connor Don, The

Strutt, E.

Oswald, J.

Sutton, H. M.

Parker, J.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Peel, Sir R.

Townley, J.

Peel, J.

Trelawny, J. S.

Pennant, Col.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Philips, G. R.

Tuite, H. M.

Philips, M.

Turner, E.

Pigot, D.

Walker, R.

Pigot, Sir R.

Wall, C. B.

Polhill, F.

Warburton, H.

Power, J.

Watson, W. H.

Praed, W. T.

Wawn, J. T.

Rawdon, Col.

Wemyss, Capt.

Redington, T. N.

Westenra, J.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Whitmore, T. C.

Repton, G. W. J.

Williams, W.

Rice, E. R.

Wilshere, W.

Roche, E. B.

Worsley, Lord

Russell, C.

Wortley, J. S.

Sandon, Visct.

Yorke, H. R.

Sheil, R. L.

Sheridan, R. B.

TELLERS.

Smith, B.

Young, J.

Smith, T. B. C.

Baring, H.

On the original Question being again put,
Mr. Wyseexpressed a hope that the hon. and gallant Member who had moved the adjournment would persist in his Motion.
Colonel Vernersaid, as several hon. Members, who were under the impression that no division would take place that night, had left the house, he would persevere in his motion for the adjournment. He therefore moved that the House should then adjourn.
Mr. Humeobserved that it might be as well, perhaps, to take the division at once on the main question.
Lord J. Russellthought it would be unadvisable to come to a division upon the main question upon that occasion; and he therefore hoped such a proposition would not be persevered in, and that they could not divide upon it that night.
Sir R. Peelwas understood to concur in the propriety of this suggestion, although he had before voted against the adjournment, and had been taken rather by surprise by a proceeding which had occurred in the early part of the evening. A very large proportion of the House then present were not aware that about eight o'clock, when only about twenty-five Members were
654
present, a Motion had been made to count the House, and but that a considerable number of hon. Members had come in in time, the business of the night would have been suspended. There was great difficulty often in keeping a House at that hour; those who went away believing that nothing conclusive would be done. But although he was not prepared to go on with frequent adjournments on a question that had been rather fully discussed, considering that there were two Gentlemen of Ireland, of different opinions, who had expressed a wish for the adjournment of a debate in which they desired to take a part, he thought it was most desirable then to have the debate adjourned.
Debate adjourned.
House adjourned at a quarter to one o'clock.

MINUTES.
Sat First.—Lord Keane, after the Death of his Father: Lord Mont Eagle, after the Death of his Father.
BILLS. Public.—Received the Royal Assent.—Exchequer Bills.
2a. Huddersfield Waterworks; Southampton Docks; Stoke-upon-Trent Market; Lord Monson (or Countess Brooke and of Warwick's) Estate; Scarborough Water.
Reported.—Devonport Gas; Plymouth and Stonehouse Gas; Edinburgh Life Assurance Company; Middlesex County Rates; Southwark and Vauxhall Water Company.
3a. and passed:—Clerkenwell Improvement; Birmingham and Staffordshire Gas Light Company.
Received the Royal Assent.—Liverpool Docks; Bradford Gas; Surrey and Sussex Roads; Glasgow and Shotts' Road; Calvert's Estate; Foulmire Inclosure.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Bishop of Chester, Duke

587
of Montrose, Earls of Haddington, Fitzwilliam, and Zetland, Marquess of Breadalbane, and Lords Kenyon, Roseberry, Hatherton, and Kinnaird, from Islandnagee, and a great number of other places, against Increase of Grant to Maynooth College.—From Free Church of Orkney (Scotland), and Inhabitants of Firth, against the running of Railway Trains on the Sabbath.—By the Marquess of Normanby, from Churchwardens of Wokingham, for Inquiry relative to the dilapidated Condition of their Church.—From Haddington, and Dunse, for Improving the Condition of Schoolmasters (Scotland).—By Lord Campbell, from Dunfermline, and Cupar, for Alteration of Game Laws.—From Wells and Wedmore, for the better Regulation of Beer Houses, especially on the Sabbath.—From Clergy and others of Runcorn, for Alteration of Sale of Beer Act.—From Clergy and others of Wells, for the better Observance of the Sabbath.—From Meltham and several other places, for the Suppression of Intemperance.—By the Marquess of Normanby, from John Thomas Perceval, of Kensington, for the adoption of Measures for the better Regulation of Lunatic Asylums.—By the Duke of Richmond, from Landowners and others of Hartington, and numerous other places, for Protection to Agriculture.—Erom Kidwelly and Greenwich, in favour of the Establishment of Local Courts.—From Mathew Phillips, Civil Engineer and Surveyor, for Inquiry into Distress, and for Relief of Working Classes.

THE CHURCH AT WOKINGHAM.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, he had a petition to present which he was desirous to bring before their Lordships while some of the right rev. Prelates remained, as it was connected with the question of the present spiritual destitution of a parish which was not far from London. The circumstances of the case had already been mentioned in the public prints. The petition was from the churchwardens of Wokingham, a parish in Berkshire. The petitioners called the attention of the House to the necessity of some remedy being devised to meet the circumstances of their case. He (Lord Normanby) thought he could put their Lordships in possession of the facts of the case in a few words, and in a smaller compass than if he were to read the petition at length. This parish of Wokingham was the peculiar jurisdiction of the Dean of Salisbury. It was a parish, he understood, of upwards of 4,000 inhabitants, and contained upwards of 8,000 acres. The Dean of Salisbury was rector, patron, and also ordinary. The tithes were commuted for 1,698 l. a year; they had been leased for many years on leases for lives, renewable by fines. The fine received by the Dean of Salisbury the last time there was a vacancy in the lives, was 2,200 l. The annual rent of the tithes was 26 l. 13 s. 4d. Of the 2,200 l. the Dean had appropriated 200 l. for the benefit of the minister, by subscribing that sum to Queen Anne's bounty. What the parishioners complained of was, that from the circumstances of the rector and ordinary being the same individual, there had been
588
no efficient visitation for some time. The petitioners went on to state, that in 1843, their attention was called by the rural Dean to the circumstance that the church was in want of repairs. They accordingly consulted a very eminent architect, Mr. Cotterell, and afterwards Mr. Good, the Surveyor to the Church Commissioners, who confirmed the report of the architect that the church was in a very dilapidated state. Mr. Jacob, the lessee, was then asked what he would do with respect to the repairs of the chancel. He said, he believed, it would be found that the chancel was not in so dilapidated a condition as had been represented. However, Mr. Jacob at length agreed to the terms proposed by the petitioners, on behalf of the vestry; but soon afterwards they received a communication from him to the effect that he did not believe that the chancel was in the same state of dilapidation as the rest of the church; and he warned them to touch it at their peril in making the repairs of the rest of the church. This led to much correspondence, with which he (Lord Normanby) would not trouble their Lordships; he would only say that he did not think that the parties had adopted that tone in their correspondence which was altogether suitable; and he thought that the latter gentleman did not recollect that those persons who moved in this matter were persons not having a personal interest in the affair, but desiring to do that for the parish which it was their duty to do. After this correspondence had been brought to a close, the churchwardens determined to summon another vestry meeting; but before doing so, they took the opinion of a learned civilian, Dr. Addams. The noble Lord then said, that Dr. Addams had been obliged to acknowledge that he could not suggest any legal remedy. The petitioners went on to state, that they actually had certificates of the state of the chancel from tradesmen who had been employed to make trifling repairs a few years ago—that if the adjoining part of the church was touched the chancel would fall. Dr. Addams also said, he thought that if the parish assented to a rate for the repair of the chancel, the churchwardens would be justified in laying a rate for that purpose; and he concluded by expressing his sincere regret that jealousies and animosities in any quarter should have prevented the proper repairs from being performed. Perhaps, the opinion of the learned civilian went rather out of the strict bounds of a legal opinion; but, after

589
all the facts of the case had been laid before him, that was the conclusion to which he had come, and the opinion was deserving of credit accordingly. Subsequently the Dean of Salisbury had corresponded with the lessee, Mr. Jacob; but the whole thing stopped short by the lessee absolutely refusing to do anything more than what would keep the chancel in its present state. With respect to the correspondence of the churchwardens with the Dean of Salisbury, they had used a word with respect to the Dean of Salisbury which, in his opinion, had better have been omitted, when they said that "the Dean's continued distrust that the chancel was out of repair was disingenuous." On the other hand, there were passages in a letter from the Dean of Salisbury which appeared in the public prints some days ago, that he (Lord Normanby) very much regretted should have been used. The passage stood thus:—
"But in writing to the Dean to inform him of these facts, they asserted that the chancel was in as dilapidated a state as the body of the church. This, his lessee denied; and, though the churchwardens have repeated the assertion in their petition, I have to state that Mr. Money, an eminent surveyor of Donington, near Newbury, having carefully examined the chancel, reports that it is substantially in repair, and that an outlay of about 40 l. would render it perfectly so."
Now, very few persons reading that statement could have failed to come to the conclusion that the petitioners had made such assertions without having the means of proving them. But those means they had in their hands, and that proof they had sent to the Dean of Salisbury, and he was consequently aware of it. The petition prayed for an alteration of the law in two respects. First, it prayed that the ordinary and the rector should not be the same person; and, secondly, it prayed that the visitation should be actual and personal. That certainly appeared to him to be a very anomalous state of things which prevented these parties from carrying out their intention of repairing the church, because the same party stood in the position of being the ordinary, the patron, and the rector.
Petition read and ordered to lie on the Table.

GAME LAWS.
Lord Campbellsaid, he had the honour to be entrusted with petitions from the Dunfermline district and the Kirkaldy district of Cupar, in refer-
590
ence to the Game Laws; and he felt it his duty very shortly to state to their Lordships the grievances of which the petitioners complained. He was not going to enter into any general history of the Game Laws; but on a subject of such importance, he thought it desirable that their Lordships should have an opportunity of expressing their opinion. The first grievance which the petitioners complained of with respect to the Game Laws was, that they were most oppressive to the tenant farmers. In that respect he could not agree with the petitioners. He thought that this was not in the slightest degree a question between landlord and tenant. So far the question was settled by contract; the lease provided for the rights over the game which the landlord was to enjoy, and it was the fault of the tenant himself if he did not stipulate for the protection which he thought necessary for the proper cultivation of his farm. It appeared to him that there had been a great deal of delusion and unfounded clamour on that subject. It had been said, that the system which now prevailed in Great Britain was very much the same as that which prevailed in France before the Revolution; but he could not at all admit that such was the case. If they were to sweep away all Game Laws, the same system as regarded landlord and tenant might still continue. The landlord might still say that he would not let his farm unless his game were allowed to feed unmolested; and the tenant might say that he would not take it unless compensation were given to him for the injury committed. With respect to the second grievance complained of, namely, the injury done to the community by the Game Laws, he thought the petitioners had reason on their side. When so many convictions for poaching, so many encounters between poachers and gamekeepers, and so many murders had taken place, it must be allowed that the serious attention of the Government should be directed to the determining whether some amendment in the law could not be devised. This was a growing evil. In the year 1811, there were 3,000 game convictions; the annual number now very nearly reached 5,000. From 1833 to 1843, there were 42 instances of homicide in encounters between poachers and gamekeepers; of these there were 25 convictions for murder. All must admit, therefore, that the evil was of the most alarming nature. He did not wish to see any system introduced which would interfere with the fair

591
enjoyment of field sports. He would be one of the last persons so far to libel the gentry as to affirm that they ware attached to their country seats for mere hunting and shooting. He did not think so. He believed that they employed themselves in educating the people, and in exercising acts of hospitality; and, at the same time, he must say that it was but fair, when they were doing so much good, that they should enjoy field sports as their ancestors had done before them. What remedy should be provided, it was not for him to suggest; but certainly something should be done either to prevent poaching or to remove the temptation to it; and if law could not do a great deal, much, he believed, might be done by kindness and good feeling. He did hope that some noble Lord who was more conversant with the subject than himself would take up the subject. He would press it on the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. But he had also a noble Lord in his eye (Lord Dacre) who, in another House, had distinguished himself by the manner in which he had dealt with this matter, and to whose exertions they were indebted for the Bill of 1831; and he would be very glad to leave the matter in the hands of that noble Lord. It had been hoped that poaching would be prevented by allowing the sale of game; but that hope had been disappointed: it was now absolutely necessary that some remedy should be devised.
Lord Dacreobserved, that in 1816 he had moved for a Committee, in the other House of Parliament, to inquire into the condition and general character of the Game Laws. The result of the inquiry was, amongst other things, the establishment of the doctrine that the property in the game was in the owner of the soil—ratione soli; for so soon as the animal was off the soil the property was no longer in the original owner, unless followed by what was called a recent pursuit. He had brought in a Bill on this subject, which was carried through Committee, but which was defeated on the Report, owing to the strong feeling which then existed against any legislation upon the subject; and he was proud to say that it was the groundwork and basis of the Bill which they were at present anxious to amend, the Bill of the 1st and 2nd William IV. He concurred in most, if not in all, that was stated by his noble Friend (Lord Campbell) as to the evils which might justly be attributed to the Game Laws as they at
592
present existed. He hoped something would be done to mitigate the mischiefs which the country, and more especially the agricultural population, were now experiencing. But it was impossible to check poaching so long as the sympathies of the people were not marching along with them. So soon as they impressed upon the public at large the real motive and character of property in game, he was sure their recognition of it would be readily obtained. He had at the present moment a Bill in reference to the matter actually prepared, and which had for some time been prepared, and which it was his intention to place before their Lordships. There was, however, a Committee at present sitting in the other House of Parliament; and, as a matter of courtesy, and, he might say, of decency, on his part, he had hesitated to force forward his own Bill until he knew the line and the decision of that Committee—until he knew whether they meant to report at all upon the subject before them, and what would be their Report, and whether their Report would be followed by legislative proceedings. Whenever he obtained any knowledge of the proceedings of that Committee, he would, if he then thought it proper so to do, be ready to lay the Bill which he had prepared upon their Lordships' Table. He hoped to be able to come to an early decision on the subject.
Lord Hathertonregarded the alterations of 1831 as very valuable in their character and tendency. They removed much that was exclusive and odious in the system of the Game Laws; but much remained still to be done. He was sorry that his noble Friend who last addressed the House had not thrown out some suggestions as to the best mode of dealing with the subject; for from his noble Friend's long attention to this subject, any suggestions thrown out by him would have been listened to with a degree of attention to which their value would have entitled them. Great mischiefs would be prevented, if those who possessed game would forego some of their privileges by repealing the enactments which made hares game. Nineteen out of every twenty convictions arising from the Game Laws were had for snaring hares. The injustice of the monstrous extent to which the preservation of hares was carried, in many cases was so great, that he was sure their Lordships would not hesitate to admit that it was extremely desirable that, by some legislative measure, an end should

593
be put to it. If hares were put upon the same footing as rabbits were on, retaining the Game Laws with respect to pheasants and partridges, there was no doubt but that a considerable destruction of them would take place in many districts, in which they could not be preserved to the extent to which they now were. If a man possessed a few acres of wood, and chose to preserve hares upon them, he might do so for his amusement under the present system, not at his own expense, but at the expense of his poorer neighbours, and might commit them to jail if they destroyed any of them. By putting hares upon a different footing, this state of things would be altered for the better.
The Earl of Stradbrokeentirely agreed with what had fallen from the noble Lord who introduced this subject, when he said that the complaint did not lie between landlord and tenant. Nothing could be more correct than to say, that the tenant, on hiring a farm, had the power of making certain arrangements with his landlord in reference to the game upon his farm. He differed from his noble Friend who spoke last upon the subject of hares. It was perfectly true that there were more convictions arising from the snaring of hares than from any other cause connected with the Game Laws; but this circumstance arose simply from the fact that hares were much more easily taken than any other species of game. With regard to the murders which had taken place, they might have been avoided if proper directions had been given to gamekeepers.
Petition read and ordered to lie on the Table.

MAYNOOTH.
Earl Fitzwilliampresented a petition from a congregation of Protestant Dissenters, against the grant to Maynooth. The noble Earl said, that the petition related to what was called, or rather miscalled, to a certain degree, the endowment of the College of Maynooth. It prayed against the proposed endowment, upon what might be considered the dissenting ground of objection—the ground that the State should not interfere in favour, not merely of the Roman Catholic Establishment, but of any Establishment whatever. The petition might be regarded as praying against the maintenance of the Anglican Establishment as well as against Maynooth. He entirely dissented from the whole scope and view of the petition, both with respect to its being hostile to
594
what was proposed to be done in favour of the College of Maynooth, and also with respect to the spirit which animated the petitioners against Ecclesiastical Establishments. The endowment of Maynooth he regarded as but a small instalment of what was due to the people of Ireland. He had great satisfaction in contemplating further measures in relation to academical establishments in Ireland. If Ministers intended to stop with their present measures, they were persons who did not comprehend the results of the measures which they were now proposing; but as they were persons, in his opinion, competent to take an adequate view of the results of those measures, he could not refrain from giving them the credit for intending a great deal more; and he was glad to be able to give them credit for such intentions. With these observations, he would lay the Petition upon the Table.
House adjourned.