Sitting of 25 May 1852

MAYNOOTH COLLEGE—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to be made to Question [11th May], "That a Select Committee be appointed, to inquire into the system of Education carried on at the College of Maynooth:"—(Mr. Spooner:) —And which Amendment was to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will resolve into a Committee, for the purpose of considering of a Bill for repealing the Maynooth Endowment Act, and all other Acts for charging the Public Revenue in aid of ecclesiastical or religious purposes"—(Mr. Anstey) —instead thereof.
Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
House resumed.
MR. SERJEANT MURPHYsaid, he rose for the purpose of opposing the Motion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner), and he trusted that in doing so the House would not misunderstand his motives. He was not in the slightest degree adverse to an inquiry of the most searching kind into the discipline, the education, and the conduct pursued in the College of Maynooth. He believed that if there were such an inquiry—and the more stringent, if possible, the better—it would only redound to the credit of the college, and show that the modes of education there adopted, the discipline there practised, and the habits of the professors and students, were in perfect conformity with the objects for which the institution was originally founded. He believed most sincerely that that inquiry, so far from reflecting discredit upon the institution, would prove that in every respect it had answered its purpose, and that the conclusion of the inquiry would be to satisfy every fair, reasonable, and dispassionate person that, instead of being amenable to the charge which had been made against it by the hon. Member—namely, that it was an institution in which doctrines were taught that were subversive of morality, and adverse to allegiance to the Sovereign, it upheld the truest allegiance to Her Majesty, and inculcated doctrines which were consonant with the highest virtue and the purest morality. Of that he was convinced. He might be asked, then, why it was that, with that conviction so strong upon his mind, he was opposed to the inquiry suggested by the hon. Member. There were many reasons. He objected to it because it was not an inquiry suggested in good faith-—because he believed the hon. Member and those who supported him in this matter, did not come forward entertaining any doubt as to the system of education pursued in the college—because there was, as he would show in the sequel, ample light already thrown upon the subject, and ample information given to the public to satisfy every reasonable mind—but because the Motion itself was suggested by a mean spirit of retaliation upon the Roman Catholics of this country and of Ireland generally, in connexion with recent matters; and that in point of fact there was no necessity for the inquiry, because the results of inquiry were full in the face of the country a} that moment. Why did he say that the inquiry was not proposed in good faith? When the hon. Member

1115
first gave notice of a Motion upon the subject of Maynooth, he directed it absolutely against the grant, and for some time the Metion remained upon the notice paper in that form. On or about the 23rd of February the hon. Gentleman, without altering the form of his notice, appended another form of notice, which was for an inquiry; but at the time he did so he did not expunge the notice with regard to the grant. Shortly afterwards Her Majesty's present Government came into power, and then— he did not know how it was, whether or not it was found more convenient for the new Government that the original form of notice should be expunged; but so it was— that notice was expunged, and the notice for an inquiry was left standing upon the paper alone. In proof of his (Mr. Serjeant Murphy's) statement, that an inquiry, as the Motion now stood, was superfluous, he would refer to a document which the House had in its own possession, which had been printed by its own sanction, and which would conclusively show it to be useless, and that every object which an inquiry could embrace had already been most particularly investigated and inquired into. The document to which he referred was the Report of the Commissioners of Education, bearing date in the year 1827, and it was drawn up by gentlemen who were most competent to form a judgment as to the inquiry they were pursuing. They were men of the very highest character, trusted by this House, and combined every shade of opinion in politics. They were Mr. Frankland Lewis, the late Mr. Leslie Foster, well known for his strong Protestant leanings in Ireland, a most distinguished and enlightened gentleman, in every respect capable of investigating the doctrines and tenets of, and the differences between, the two religions—a Mr. Grant, a Mr. Clasper, who was a Presbyterian, and Mr. Blake, the late Chief Remembrancer in Ireland, well known to many individuals in this House, a Roman Catholic, who had been a practitioner at the Chancery bar in this country, and a man of great intelligence. The inquiry entered upon by those Commissioners was not that which had been suggested by the Home Secretary—a mere passing and transitory inquiry, having for its object only certain small points of discipline and conduct. It was not an inquiry that was slurred or skimmed over in order that a meagre report might he presented to Parliament with regard to the discipline of the col-
1116
lege. It embraced the whole field of speculation and controversy, the differences between the Church of England and the Church of Rome, and all those matters which Mr. Spooner supposed were essential points of the teaching at Maynooth, and which, according to the hon. Member's doctrine, instigated immorality and a want of religious principle. The Commissioners stated in their Report that they had inquired into the doctrines taught at Maynooth respecting oaths and vows; and he believed a considerable portion of the hon. Member's speech was devoted to that as one of the subjects into which an inquiry ought to be instituted. They inquired into the several cases in which oaths and vows were either held to be null from the beginning, or ceased to be binding. The extent of the power of dispensation from such obligation claimed by the Pope and the Roman Catholic Bishops— the views which were entertained respecting the oaths and declarations of allegiance required from Roman Catholics by the law —the nature of what were usually termed the "Gallican liberties," and how far the principle of those liberties was adopted or rejected at Maynooth—the nature of the distinction between those which were known by the name of Ultramontane and Cisalpine doctrines, and how far either were inculcated at the college—the views taught or entertained respecting the jurisdiction, authority, and infallibility of the Pope— the authority attributed to the Pope's bulls —the decrees of General Councils—the meaning and import of some of the most remarkable bulls, and the boundaries which were held to separate spiritual from temporal matters. They examined the professor of canon law in the college as to the maxims of that law upon a variety of important subjects, and how far the canon law of Rome was considered to be binding in Ireland. And in connexion with different topics arising in the course of their inquiry, they likewise considered the class books which were used in the college, and sought information as to the views entertained, taught, or inculcated by the professors, to whom it more particularly appertained to form the opinions of the students, respecting the authority, character, and rights of the Established Church. Having thus read to the House the programme of the several subjects which were on that occasion thoroughly investigated, he maintained that if inquiry were now the sole object, that object had already been fully

1117
satisfied; and that hon. Members opposite, instead of asking the House again to appoint a Committee of Inquiry, might content themselves with simply moving the reprinting of the report which was then issued. Such a reprint would satisfy every candid mind with regard to the state of the institution, at least up to the year 1827; and he could demonstrate that, from that period to the present hour, no change whatever had taken place in the system of instruction at Maynooth. He now came to another reason for resisting the inquiry, which was well expressed in the supplemental notice given by his hon. Friend the Member for Kerry (Mr. II. Herbert) which was as follows:—
"That whereas the elected visitors and the five visitors appointed by Her Majesty are bound to visit the College of Maynooth once within every twelve months, have full power to call before them the president, vice-president, professors, tutors, and all other members of the establishment, and to inquire into the government, management, and discipline of the said college; and whereas the Lord Lieutenant or other chief Governor of Ireland has authority to order such additional visitation as may seem to him necessary, any inquiry by a Parliamentary Committee is not only superfluous and unnecessary, but will have a tendency to create distrust in the minds of the people of Ireland as to the intentions of the Legislature with regard to the continuance of a grant guaranteed by Act of Parliament, and will foster and encourage a spirit of religious bitterness among different classes of Her Majesty's subjects in that part of the United Kingdom."
He perfectly assented to that statement, which, indeed, in his opinion, was most pregnant, and afforded a full and pertinent answer to the present Motion. It cut the knot of the inquiry—went to the root of it at once, and gave the full and pertinent answer to the Motion. The right hon. Secretary for the Home Department, in dealing with this inquiry the other night, appeared to have altogether misconceived it. He (Mr. Serjeant Murphy) believed him to be too candid a man, and knew him to be too honourable a man, to make any statement which he did not really believe; but the right hon. Gentleman, when he spoke upon the subject of this inquiry, alluded simply to the annual inquiry, and not to the inquiry which the Act empowered the Lord Lieutenant to carry out in an extraordinary emergency. The l0th Section of the Act directed a visitation to be held once in every year; but the 16th Section went further, and directed—
"That, in addition to such periodical or ordinary visitation, the visitors by this Act appointed, or any three of them, shall in like manner visit
1118
the said college whensoever and so often as they shall be thereunto required by the Lord Lieutenant or other Chief Governor or Governors of Ireland for the time being, by warrant or order signed by him or them,"
MR. WALPOLE: They are only the same powers as at the ordinary visitation. The words are, "in like manner."
MR. SERJEANT MURPHY: But the right hon. Gentleman would allow him to call his attention to the 18th Section of the Act, which gave visitatorial powers in matters of religion. True, those powers were confined to visitors who were members of the Roman Catholic persuasion; but he hoped there was no man in this House, not even including the hon. Member for North Warwickshire himself, who would have the meanness to say that men holding the high position which those individuals did who were the Roman Catholic visitors of the college, if anything were brought before them as such visitors, in matters of religion, to show that the teaching of the professors was either subversive of the original institution of the seminary, or subversive of the allegiance due to the Sovereign, or the morality of Christianity, would shrink in the least degree from exposing it. He said, therefore, that within the Act itself there was every requirement that was necessary for conducting an investigation; and that everything that was done ultra by a Committee of this House would be not only useless, but would be the work of a body which, from its peculiar character, was not formed to enter into any investigation of the sort. He believed there was a Commission at present sitting under the direction of the Crown for the purpose of inquiring into the condition of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. He did not know much of the circumstances connected with that Commission; but he believed that the Crown in issuing it had been guided by one honest and upright principle, and that was, that there should be no pre-judgment. He had no doubt that care had been taken that the parties who conducted the investigation should be persons selected alike from those who were interested in upholding the Universities in question on their present footing, and those who held the opposite opinion, that there should be a proper balance of opinion among them, as well as that they should be men of collegiate habits, whose characters and attainments would afford a guarantee that, whatever conclusion they might arrive at, the

1119
result would be satisfactory to the country. If, then, an inquiry into the College of Maynooth should be thought to be necessary, why should it not be an inquiry similar to that which was made into the cases of Oxford and Cambridge, instead of an inquiry by a Committee of the House of Commons? He meant no disrespect to Committees of that House; but they all knew how such Committees were usually constituted, and that, however willing the House might be to place them upon an impartial footing, personal, political, and partial feelings were certain to intrude themselves. He believed he only paid a merited compliment to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire in supposing that if he obtained the Committee for which he asked, he was too good a Protestant to put upon that Committee a preponderance of Members in favour of Roman Catholicism. He maintained, therefore, that the machinery which had been suggested for the purpose of inquiry by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire was a machinery improper and inadequate; that it was not calculated to accomplish the desired object of revealing the truth; and that any report which might be made by a Committee so constituted, would go forth to the public lacking the sanction of that calmness and impartiality which was necessary in such a case. He would not allude, except in passing, to the curious fact that the inquiry had not been proposed till the very close of the Session, when it was impossible to go into it; but he would ask, who could believe that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had a bonâ fide object in view in proposing that inquiry, when he had allowed his Motion, like a wounded snake, to "drag its slow length along" from the 10th of February to the present hour, without even a sting in its tail? The fact was—and he said it without fear of contradiction—that the inquiry had been suggested for the sake of political capital, which it was calculated to achieve in certain quarters. He could conceive the hon. Member for North Warwickshire being conscientiously opposed to the grant. He gave him credit for the same conscientious feeling which he claimed for himself; but he must say that it appeared to him that the real objects of the hon. Member and those who had taken the course of suggesting inquiry, was not merely inquiry, but, as had indeed been openly avowed by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (the Marquess of Blandford), their object was the
1120
entire abrogation of the grant. The hon. Member and his friends had committed a great mistake in the premises on which they had argued. They had chosen throughout to assume that the teaching of the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church formed no part of the original objects of the institution of Maynooth. It was quite obvious that they must have done so, because the examples of the kind of teaching at Maynooth which had been brought forward as grounds for the inquiry, had all been taken from books which embraced the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church. He did not mean to say that all that the hon. Member had stated was true; for certain casuistical views had been suggested in which he could not agree, and which, in his opinion, were repugnant alike to the morality and religion taught by the Roman Catholic Church; but what he meant to say was, that the hon. Member's arguments, although nominally urged in support of an inquiry, were in reality directed against the grant, simply because the teaching at Maynooth was the teaching of the Roman Catholic faith. If the House, however, would only carry their minds back for a moment to the original institution of the College of Maynooth, he would undertake to demonstrate to any dispassionate mind that in no degree had that college swerved from the objects for which it was originally instituted. It would be remembered that just before the institution of the College of Maynooth, there was a relaxation of the penal laws of Ireland, and that the free exercise of their religion was henceforth guaranteed to the Roman Catholics. It was notorious that up to that time there was a lack of the means of education for the Irish priesthood within the country itself, and that consequently the students were obliged to seek a precarious education where they liked—in France, Italy, Belgium, Spain, and Portugal. It was then suggested, that in order that the licence and freedom which had been conceded to the Roman Catholics should have their proper front and consequence, a new restriction should be imposed upon them, though in the shape of a boon, and that was that their priesthood should be educated at home. But was it ever suggested that education should be other than an education in the tenets of the Roman Catholic religion? Or was there any mystery as to what those tenets were? Never. The grounds of controversy between the Roman Catholic and-

1121
Protestant Churches had, ever since the Reformation, been thrown open to all the world; and, with that open book and the fullest means of inquiry before them, the Legislature agreed to the establishment of the College of Maynooth. He thought he could show that the system of teaching at Maynooth had utterly repudiated the so-called Ultramontane doctrines which it was now so much the fashion to decry. The original teachers at Maynooth were two French gentlemen, who were Doctors of the Sorbonne; and it was well known that there was a great distinction between the Cisalpine doctrines taught in France, and the Ultramontane doctrines taught in Italy. The system of teaching at Maynooth had, from its very origin, received the Cisalpine impress, and he would undertake to show that no Ultramontanism that had since entered into Ireland had had any connexion whatever with Maynooth. Having stated what the original institution of Maynooth was, he would now call their attention to the change which had taken place in that institution—he meant the change that had been introduced by the late Sir Robert Peel, when he increased the grant, and impressed the character of permanence on the grant, which had hitherto been annual and uncertain. Now every one that was at all acquainted with the character of the late Sir Robert Peel knew this—that however slow he might have been in approaching questions of reform, there never was a reformer, when he had adopted the principle, of a more searching or comprehensive character. That great statesman had before him the investigation that was made into the practices of the college in 1827—he had before him all the modes of inquiry that had been suggested from year to year by the visitors of the institution, amongst whom were men of the highest promise and station. He had before him every means of access as to the mode of teaching adopted by the College. Under these circumstances, did not the House think that if the mode of teaching practised at Maynooth, at least up to 1845, had not been well known to the late right hon. Baronet, that he would have instituted a searching inquiry on the subject before he proposed a measure by which the grant to Maynooth was not only to be made permanent, but considerably increased? Would he not have insisted that a Commission of Inquiry should be issued to ascertain whether that teaching was in conformity with religion and morality? Was not this fact that
1122
no such inquiry was instituted, no such Commission issued, a sufficient answer to the charges made with such spiritual unction by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire? If a man like the late Sir Robert Peel, who was so well known for his great caution as a statesman, for his grasping intellect and exalted character— if he were satisfied as to the kind of teaching practised at Maynooth—if he who had the courage to throw over his prejudices when he found that they ran counter to the well-being of society—were willing to admit that the principles inculcated at Maynooth were not of a character dangerous to the morals and the institutions of the country—surely it ought to satisfy even the prejudices of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, that up to that time, at all events, no such charges as he had brought against Maynooth, could be fairly made. He (Mr. Serjt. Murphy) fearlessly appealed to any candid mind whether if there was any ground for such charges being made against the College, they should not have been brought forward at the time when the late Sir Robert Peel had proposed his measure. He contended, therefore, that up to 1845, there had been no infringement of discipline, or of religion, or of morality, alleged against the Roman Catholic College of Maynooth. If He might appeal from the memory of a great man dead to the professions of a great man living, he would fearlessly appeal from the late Sir Robert Peel in his grave, to the Earl of Derby in his place in the House of Lords, and he asked the House why, if such charges were well founded, that eminent statesman, who had the same Bill under his consideration— who had adopted the whole measure then suggested by the late Sir Robert Peel— who was armed with that practical knowledge which he had so recently before acquired as Chief Secretary for Ireland— had not known that Maynooth was amenable to such accusations? If the noble Earl believed in any one of these calumnies, it was his duty to have opposed the passing of that measure; but, on the contrary, having actually assisted in the carrying of it, he (Mr. Serjt. Murphy), always giving his Lordship credit for believing in his conscience everything he states, and for being a highminded straightforward man in everything, he had no hesitation in saying that that distingushed man did not believe one word of it. So far he wag dealing with a state of things up to the year 1845. The right hon. Gentleman

1123
the Home Secretary (Mr. Walpole) stated that in his judgment the conduct of the priests since 1845 was that particularly to which the inquiry should he dedicated— that that deluge of abuse and of opposition to the Government of this country, which the priests of Ireland have been in the habit of pouring out for the last few years called for this inquiry. Now to that statement he (Mr. Serjt. Murphy) thought that a most conclusive answer could be given. He was certain that any person who was acquainted with the subject would agree with him that the answer he was about to give to this statement would be conclusive. The curriculum of education in the College of Maynooth requires a period of eight years to be devoted to it. From the time a young man goes in to receive instruction in Humanities and in Latin and Greek, until he goes forth to the world an ardent priest, he must give up eight years of his life. The grant was not made until 1845, and did not come into operation until 1846. Six years had not elapsed since that time. He would undertake to say that since this measure was passed, not a single Roman Catholic priest, educated in Maynooth, had ever been found participating in what were called Ultramontane principles. He challenged the most searching inquiry upon this head. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said that this inquiry might probably turn out for our benefit. He would ask that right hon. Gentleman to say, in the name of the Government, whether he was prepared to uphold this grant in its integrity, if it be found that the inquiry had turned out for the benefit of the college? The Protestants of Ireland, as well as England, wished to be informed of the ultimate intentions of the Government in respect to this grant. This was one of the questions upon which the Government were going to the country. As to the question of protection, after what had been said by the Prime Minister in another place last evening, it must be admitted that it was thrown helplessly to the winds. There was not the slightest chance of resuscitating it. Well, then, they were going to the election with the words "Protestant" and "No Maynooth grant" upon their banners. If he satisfied them upon full inquiry—if the Committee or Commission to be appointed was satisfied—that Maynooth, being originally a Catholic college, and acting in conformity to those original principles which as a
1124
Roman Catholic institution it teaches— that those principles are now precisely the same as when the institution was originally founded, that it has never taught any other, that it has never deflected from them, he would ask them, under such circumstances, were they prepared to uphold the grant? Had they even made this an open question amongst them? He wanted plain speaking upon this point; let them have no mistake upon the matter; he did not want to enter into this inquiry upon the principle of "heads I win, tails you lose." He did not want to have one system in Liverpool, and another in Suffolk. He wanted to hear the outspoken and candid voice of the Cabinet. Let them then answer the question. If the inquiry turns out satisfactory—if Maynooth has never swerved from its original objects, are they prepared to withhold the grant? This was an inquiry which the country demanded, and the country would not feel satisfied unless it was fully answered. The country will not be content to know, on the one hand, that the Home Secretary tells them the inquiry is necessary; and, on the other, the Prime Minister should say that it was not necessary for the present. He wanted to know exactly the reasons assigned by the Government in that House for making an alteration in the geant. How was it, he would ask, that there had recently been in the Protestant mind of this country so strong a wish to withdraw the grant from Maynooth? He thought he could show upon fair grounds of reasoning, that there was no connexion whatever with the desire to get rid of this grant and the actual teaching at the College of Maynooth. On looking back to the state of Ireland in 1848 — a state which he deeply lamented at the time, though he was not there to pronounce an opinion on the character or the intentions of the unfortunate men who took a prominent part in that insurrection; indeed, he might here observe, that he believed them to be honourable, upright and sincere in their proceedings on that occasion, and he thought it would have been but a graceful act upon the part of the Government to have acquiesced in the proposition recently made them for a general amnesty—but whatever might have been the consequences of that movement, he could only hazard an opinion as to its effects upon the country. He believed that there never was a moment in which all the prognostications of civil war were

1125
more strongly defined. They ought to recollect that, in that year of 1848, they had concentrated in Ireland about 50,000 of Her Majesty's troops, over which was placed a man of high distinction in the army of his country, to direct their operations. It was true that it resulted in no bloodshed; but he should like to know to whom they were mainly indebted for such a termination? One of the suggestions which had been thrown out here in support of the present Motion was this— that the worst feature of the relations which existed between the priests and parishioners in Ireland was, that their spiritual influence was so strong over them as to give them an overwhelming authority in the mind of the laity under every circumstance. Now, for argument sake, he would assume this to be correct, although he could deny it from his own personal knowledge. Well, then, what was the peculiar feature in the country at that time? It had not quite recovered from that awful visitation of famine, which had desolated the people. Death and misery had done their work; there was discontent throughout the length and breadth of the land—he might say that the country was at the very edge of a frightful conflagration, if there was one found bold enough to light the match. Well, then, who stood between the Government and bloodshed? They were on the very verge of a civil war, and a dreadful internecine struggle. Who, however, prevented it? Why, the Roman Catholic priesthood of Ireland. For evidence of this fact, he need go no further than the statement made by the late Viceroy of Ireland. He had also before him the answer given by Her Majesty's present Viceroy to the deputation that recently waited upon him with a memorial, praying Her Majesty's pardon towards those unhappy men who were now suffering in exile for the part they had taken in the proceedings of 1848. He would read an extract of that answer, for the purpose of showing additional evidence of the fact to which he referred:—
"The total failure of the designs to excite a general insurrection in Ireland, has probably veiled the heinousness of the guilt of those by whom they were projected, and I have no doubt that many who now advocate their pardon would turn from them with abhorrence, had not the civil strife and bloodshed which they meditated been prevented by the defensive measures of the Government, and the general loyalty of Her Majesty's subjects."
And here were the people of Ireland, who
1126
they were told were taught to be disloyal by their priests, characterised by Her Majesty's representative in that country as being a loyal body. The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland here says, that if it had not been for the general loyalty of the inhabitants of Ireland, the country on that occasion would have been steeped in blood. He asked whether this was not a good answer to the accusations made by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, when he said that the institution of Maynooth was calculated to create disaffection and a want of allegiance in the minds of the Catholic people towards their Sovereign? After the year 1848, he found that the country was reduced to a state of quiescence, and that the people of Ireland had been frequently spoken of in terms of admiration for their conduct under circumstances of great privation, by distinguished persons in this House and this country. There was then an harmonious action existing between the Viceroy of Ireland and his Government, as well as with all classes of the population, including the Roman Catholic priesthood; and he ventured to assert that up to this hour the same harmony would have been manifest, had it not been for the unfortunate kind of legislation that had been adopted towards the religion of the people, and for what he might call the unfortunate letter of the noble Lord lately at the head of the Government. He recollected on that occasion—and those who talked of the Irish priests as being Ultramontane in principle should recollect—that when the Government instituted a system of legislation for the purpose of repressing what they called the Papal encroachment, they, the Members from Ireland of the Roman Catholic persuasion particularly, did feebly, hut firmly, raise their voices against such legislation. They said that, whatever innovations had taken place in the ecclesiastical structure of their Church in England, Ireland, at all events, was no party to it. The titles of their hierarchy in Ireland were already known and recognised in legal documents. Why then, they asked, did they apply their legislation in this respect to Ireland, when no infringement had been made on the part of the Roman Catholics upon the temporal prerogatives of the Sovereign? Did they recollect the answer that was given to such an inquiry? The answer did not come from the noble Lord the Member for London, who was the originator of the proposition, but an an-

1127
swer was given which was acquiesced in by Members from both sides of the House. That answer was urged by the right hon. the Secretary for the Home Department, as well as by Her Majesty's present Attorney General. What was that answer which they got? They said that the measure must apply to Ireland for the protection of Ireland herself; that her own privileges had been violated; that they had been in the habit of sending three names to Home as nominations of vacancies occurring amongst her hierarchy; and that by the course pursued by the Court of Rome in a late instance, the Roman Catholics of Ireland had been prevented from exercising privileges they formerly possessed. Ireland sent three names, but none of them were selected. Dr. Cullen, the Ultramontane priest, as he was called, was nominated in their stead. They should recollect that Dr. Cullen was not a May-nooth priest; and he it was who had introduced those matters to which you are so hostile. If "an Italian monk," as he is termed, educated in Rome, if he had subverted the old liberties of the Irish Church, if he be imbued with what are called Ultramontane principles, was that, he (Mr. Serjeant Murphy) asked, an argument for depriving Maynooth of that grant which had been given to her upon the faith of permanency; and were the students that had hitherto been educated in that college to be compelled to go to Italy for the purpose of receiving those advantages? If such be the case, all he could say was, that it was a most extraordinary mode of reasoning, and it appeared to him to be acting upon that principle involved in the vulgar adage of "cutting off one's nose to vex one's face." It was most singular that, because a man was educated in Italy, he should have such an extraordinary power of infusing amongst the people with whom he is surrounded, those Ultramontane principles which appeared to excite in their minds so much horror. Such a principle, if acknowledged, would come to this, that, because an Italian monk had been elected as a member of the hierarchy of Ireland, the Government of the country would compel all the priesthood for the future to be educated by Italians. That was the most incongruous and inconclusive mode of reasoning which he had ever heard. He now came to what the Government had said upon this subject. One of the reasons urged by the right hon. the Home Secretary for interfering with the College
1128
of Maynooth was this, that, pari passu with the original grant given to that college, there was introduced into Ireland a new collegiate system of education; but that, inasmuch as the Synod of Thurles had interfered with this system, they could not view it in any other light than that the priests of Ireland had run counter to the original objects of the Government. Now, it was perfectly notorious that the rejection of the Colleges referred to turned upon the nicest point—upon one vote of a member of the Synod, who, in fact, was not a Bishop, but a vicar capitular, acting in the absence of a right rev. Prelate, who was unable to attend. He recollected having heard with great delight the speech of the noble Earl at present the head of the Government, in another place, in which speech he said that one of the objects nearest and dearest to his mind in establishing the National School system in Ireland was, that it should take the shape of the system pursued in the schools of this country, which was that it should act in perfect harmony and in conformity with the opinion of the clergy of all persuasions. But was it not notorious that the clergymen of the Established Church in Ireland, to the number of 1,200, had declared against the national system of education? Was it not notorious that the difficulty of the late Government in selecting a Bishop was to find some one in favour of that scheme? If this were the fact, then—if so many clergymen of the Established Church had set an example against the law—if it were acting against the law, why did some hon. Gentlemen look only at the mote in their neighbour's eye? But what were they saying now? That this College of Maynooth calls for extraordinary legislation simply because by a balanced vote at the Thurles Synod they did no more than issue an order that the deans of residence should withdraw themselves from the Government Colleges. There was another remark made in support of the present Motion which struck him as being most illusory. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said, that because the College was poorer, and the priesthood of Ireland, generally speaking, getting richer, inasmuch as they were contributing largely to swell the fund for a Catholic university, this grant was now no longer required. He should like to know where was the reason in that argument? They should recollect that the strongest motive supposed to influence men in the

1129
world was that deduced from selfishness. Parliament had given to the College of Maynooth, by the increase of the grant, comforts which they had been heretofore deprived of. It had given permanency to such grant, when before it was fluctuating. It gave them everything that was calculated to tie them to the Crown of this country. If the people of Maynooth were contributing to a fund for the erection of a distinct university, while their education there was dependent upon an eleemosynary grant of this House, it did appear to him to be the most extraordinary mode of conduct in the world. All the antecedents of Maynooth were opposed to such an idea. Any person who knew the College as well as he had done, for a period of thirty-five years, must admit that in the character of the institution, and in its professors, it is eminently Conservative. There was Dr. Everard, afterwards the Archbishop of Cashel, who was remarkable for his Conservative principles; there was Dr. Crolly, who had been President of Maynooth, and was subsequently connected with the Court of Lisbon—why, a stronger Tory or a more Conservative man he had never met; and though last, not least, there was a name that must be received with veneration by all persons—the late venerable Dr. Murray, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, to whom the late Government had offered a seat in the Privy Council—this venerable prelate was also well known to be Conservative in his principles. Since the grant had been made permanent, he was not aware that any opposite feeling had been evinced. If they could find any of the professors of Maynooth upon the hustings or upon the platform—even in the old Catholic Association, or publicly urging on during that time the cause of Catholic emancipation—if they could find them entering into the discussions of the Tenant League Association, or of any of the questions that have occupied the public mind in Ireland, he would at once give up the question. But they could not put their finger upon one that had been mixed up with the agitation of any public question. Another statement had been made in support of the present Motion; and certainly if it were not that he had the greatest possible respect for the sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, he should be inclined to smile at it. The right hon. Gentleman said it was notorious that this institution had swerved from the original principles
1130
upon which it was established, because they were educating a set of foreign priests —that, in fact, the funds were diverted from a home education to the education of foreign priests. Now he was quite sure that if the right hon. Gentleman had taken advantage of his official position, and had instituted even the most meagre inquiry, he would have found that there was no foundation for such a statement except in the ranting ravings of the Standard and the Warder newspapers. Why, the fact was that even with the addition made to the grant, Maynooth had proved utterly insufficient to supply the wants of the Irish Catholic Church—there was a lack of machinery for enabling it to extend its operations over Ireland. And what was the consequence? Why, in the west of Ireland there were to be found persons taking advantage of its weakness in supplying a sufficiency of priests for that part of the country, and of the miserable condition into which the poor Irish Roman Catholics had been plunged, by travelling through those parts with a bible in one hand, and a loaf of bread in the other, in order to tempt the starving people into a declaration of Protestantism. He held in his hand a letter written by an Englishman and a Protestant, from the west of Ireland, addressed to the hon. Member for Middlesex, who had given him permission to read it to the House. It was dated the 8th of May, 1852:—
"Knowing the interest you take in the welfare of Ireland, I am induced to trouble you with the following statement of what I witnessed during a recent visit to the county of Galway, in the hope that your exposure in your place in Parliament of the atrocious system of proselytising now being carried on in that poverty-stricken district, through the instrumentality of the clergy of the Established Church, may have the effect of affording the starving population of the west of Ireland some protection against the dreadfully demoralising consequences certain to result from a continuance of the unholy and diabolical attempts now being made to take advantage of the destitution of the people for the purpose of inducing them to renounce their religion. The people, too, appear to be quite courteous and unsophisticated, eager for employment, and most grateful for the slightest encouragement; and the priests, whenever I questioned them, appeared to be incessantly engaged in the discharge of their spiritual duties; and I had frequent occasion to witness their zeal in the performance of their religious avocation, and the consequent respect in which they are deservedly held by their poverty-striken flocks; and they evidently share in the general destitution which unhappily afflicts the people of this ill-fated land. Is it to be wondered at, therefore, that the priest, who always appears to the people in the alternative form of a friend and benefactor, should exer-

1131
cise oyer them an influence so potent as to resist all the attempts made to sever it? To counteract this state of things, and to spread the benefits of the' Reformation, as it is called, the present Bishop of Tuam has for some time past carried on a war of proselytism against the people, or at least affords it his sanction and support; and as the regularly-ordained and educated ministers of the Established Church could not endure the privations and discomforts inseparable from a residence amongst the poor people and in the remote portions of the district, a band of missionaries, without knowledge or refinement of mind, and who are utterly unscrupulous as to the means used to make converts, have been ordained for the purpose of carrying on the unholy warfare, and, taking advantage of the state of utter destitution to which the unhappy people are reduced: they offer them bribes in the shape of clothes and food, to induce them to forsake their religion, and to send their children to the scriptural schools. In this manner the children of the poor are taken from the wretched abodes of their starving parents, who, being unable to afford them the necessary means of support, are literally forced to submit to an unwilling, and necessarily hypocritical, assent to the doctrines inculcated at those schools; and I venture fearlessly to assert that there is scarcely one among those so-called 'converts' who does not bitterly lament the dreadful necessity which compels him to submit, even for a time, to the social degradation and misery consequent on his pretending to become a "convert."
The letter was too long to be read entire to the House; but that sample of its quality would, he (Mr. Serjeant Murphy) was satisfied, suffice. Would any man venture to tell him, under these circumstances, that the statement of the right hon. the Home Secretary—namely, that the funds allotted to Maynooth for national purposes were alienated for the education of foreign priests—had any foundation in fact? It had no foundation, but in the fanatic head of some unhappy scribe of the Protestant party; Another statement of the right hon. Gentleman was equally singular: it was that there existed what Sir Robert Peel called "a formidable conspiracy" among the priests in Ireland as against the Government of this country, which it was the object of the Maynooth grant to counteract. He (Mr. Serjeant Murphy) wished that hon. Members, and right hon. Members also, before they talked of formidable conspiracies of this nature, had looked at home—had turned their eyes on the table of the House, and had seen the swarms of petitions from all parts of England and Scotland in reference to the subject, and to mark the language in which these petitions were couched, and the deep insults they conveyed to Her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects in Ireland. It was almost too bad that those petitions should have been
1132
received by the House, and that the House had not been disgusted with their details. But as they had been received and printed by order of Parliament, he was justified in referring to one, at least, as an example of the manner in which the religion of a large portion of Her Majesty's subjects was alluded to; and before he had done, he would warrant that the House would come to the same conclusion as he had arrived at—that though there might be a formidable confederacy in the case, it was not a confederacy of the Irish priests as against the Government of this country, but a confederacy of the bigots of England and Scotland as against the existence of the Catholic religion in Ireland—that it was, in fact, an anti-Catholic movements a conspiracy arising out of recent events in this country, a retort against Oxford, and the learned and pious men who had convulsed the English Church Establishment in searching for the truth upon which it was grounded, and who had many of them joined the Catholic Church. It was, in short, to retaliate against that movement that the Motion before the House was then suggested. The petition to which he referred came from Glasgow, and it described the Papal religion as "a most appalling corruption of Christianity." Was that language to be applied to the religion of a large body of Her Majesty's subjects? It then went on to describe it as a delusion, employed for the ruin of men's souls —to state that the liberties of Christ's Church were trampled under foot by the tyranny of a bigoted priesthood—and that the Roman Catholic doctrine was a denial of the Scriptures, These were the paltry charges brought against the religion of the Irish people by the second city in Scotland, which by the way had, he was informed, not fewer than 50,000 Irish inhabitants. This was the sort of harmony and good-will that existed in the nation which had built a Crystal Palace and invited foreigners from every end of the earth to witness the bitter intolerance with which they regarded their own brethren. Her Majesty's Government told the House —he (Mr. Serjt, Murphy) did not perceive the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place—that right hon. Gentleman was the apologist of his brother Ministers in this matter; but he must say that the conduct of Government in respect of this question, as in respect to that of Protection, seemed to be, playing fast and loose—they reminded him of the figures

1133
in the old Dutch clocks—one of which came out in fine weather, and the other in foul. He might, however, fancy the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Downing-street waited upon by a low Protestant, who might say to him, "We don't want inquiry. The people of England are rampant against these abominations. Mr. Spooner (whose very appearance is a personation of the acid bigotry of the country) and those who act with him, have loaded the table of the House with petitions against the abominations of this woman, whose capacity for sitting is so large." The Chancellor of the Exchequer, throwing back his coat in the blandest manner, would reply, "Why, you see, inquiry is only putting in the small end of the wedge. It will be an inquiry by a packed Committee, of course, for Spooner understands how to pack a Committee as well as anybody—and then down will go Maynooth." Then the right hon. Gentlemen might be visited by an hon. Member of the Oxford school, who might say, "Well, what am I to do? What will my Catholic constituents say?" "Oh!" the Chancellor of the Exchequer would reply," never mind. Don't you hear what Walpole says? We are humbugging these fellows, as we are about Protection. Give us a majority and we'll send Protection to Old Scratch, and uphold Maynooth for ever. "He (Mr. Serjeant Murphy) thought he was justified in this conclusion by what had already taken place. He had seen the Chancellor of the Exchequer on one night hugging the budget of his predecessor to his breast as if it were a very sprightly and engaging child, while the next morning he found the Solicitor General holding up the very same budget to public obloquy, as if it were a rickety and distempered bantling. The noble Lord at the head of the Government said he had no intention of depriving Maynooth of this grant; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the same. The Home Secretary made a slip, it was true, but he corrected himself; but the Solicitor General wrote a letter, which spoke for itself. Why, what said the Secretary of the Treasury, the candidate for Liverpool (Mr. Forbes Mackenzie), on this subject? The hon. Gentleman, as had just been suggested to him, was the "whipper-in" of the party opposite. Why, since the days of Proteus there never was such a whipper-in. The hon. Gentleman, the driver of bucolic calves, seemed just as
1134
versatile as his prototype the driver of marine calves.
"Omnia transformat sese in miracula rerum. Verum, ubi nulla fugam reperit fallacia, victus In sese redit."
The hon. Gentleman had, however, returned a Ses anciens amours, and proclaims to the old women of England and Scotland that he is a Protestant. "His wound was great because it was so small." The hon. Gentleman voted against the grant when it was small, and embraced it when it was large. The hon. Gentleman's conduct reminded him of the young lady, who excused the result of a faux pas by saying, "Oh, it was such a little one." The hon. Gentleman, he presumed, formally opposed the grant because it was "such a little one." But were the Government to be trusted, when they said they did not mean to repeal this grant? Would not any well-constituted Government have at once put their hand upon the Solicitor General and the Secretary to the Treasury? He might remind the House that Mr. Pringle, who once held the office now filled by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mackenzie), was turned out of his place by Sir E. Peel, for acting precisely as the present Secretary to the Treasury had done. He could only say for himself, that his conduct in that House in all matters connected with the Government, had always been characterised by moderation of opinion—that indeed he was one who had gained obloquy for the moderation of his opinions; but he must take the liberty of declaring, as one who had no electioneering object in view—who felt as secure of being again returned to that House, if he chose, as any could be on such a matter.—that he had for years watched both sides of the House; and his opinion was, that there was a rabid Protestant feeling in existence, which would allow no Government, however well disposed, to do justice to Ireland. He must therefore declare that, from this time, the Irish Roman Catholic Members had, in his opinion, only one resource, and that was to be self-dependent—to keep together as one party, to stand aloof from conflict, and to hang on the flanks of the opposing factions, waiting the fitting time when in one compact array they could throw in their united force in favour of freedom and toleration in religion.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he was aware of the difficulty of fully discussing the question before the House in a spirit of impartiality;

1135
but as an appeal had been made in the last debate to those Members of the Government connected with Ireland to come forward and state their opinions on the subject at issue, he held it to be unmanly not to do so on the first opportunity; he should, however, say nothing, he hoped, in the observations that he would address to the House, that was unworthy his own position, or disrespectful to the opinions of others; not in the temper of the Constitution, and the spirit of Christianity. Notwithstanding the pleasantry of his hon. and learned Friend's speech, the question before the House was a very serious one; it involved consequences of the most vital import to the country, and therefore it demanded the most temperate and truthful consideration on the part of the House; it should be approached without party feeling or prejudice, and it should be dealt with on its merits, as by persons accountable not merely to their constituents but to a higher tribunal. In that spirit he should endeavour to treat it. He would say at the outset, that the Motion under discussion being the Motion of an independent Member of that House, and not of the Government, it was open for the Government to consider how, consistently with the interests of justice and fair play, they should deal with it. It would be remembered, that before the present Government came into office, the question had assumed the form of a direct repeal of the Maynooth grant. When the noble Lord (the Earl of Derby) came into office, he found it to be inconsistent with his position to assent to that view. He (Mr. Napier) himself, whatever might be his own individual convictions on the subject, was not prepared to assent to a proposition for the immediate repeal of the grant. Even if he considered it to be a grant which, on principle, ought ultimately to be repealed, he thought it was due to the parties who supported it, that there should be a dispassionate and careful consideration of all the circumstances connected with the case. At the outset, then, he admitted that the immediate repeal of the grant would be inconsistent with justice and principle, and would be derogatory to their position as the Legislature of a great country. The hon. Member who placed that Motion on the paper of the House, finding, therefore, that the Government would not accede to a repeal, proposes an inquiry. In that form the Govern-
1136
ment, in his (Mr. Napier's) opinion, were bound to accede to the Motion, and that was the opinion also of a great number of Members on both sides of the House. The Government could not honestly resist an inquiry; and the only question, therefore, was a question of time—when it should be made, and how carried on. The groundwork of that inquiry being, whether the funds allowed for the maintenance of Maynooth being in the nature of a trust for the public benefit and advantage of the people of Ireland—that trust had been administered in accordance with this object. With regard to the policy and intentions of the noble Earl at the head of the Government, he (Mr. Napier) had had no direct communication with the noble Earl on the subject; but he understood that noble Earl to say this—namely, that, being a party to the Act of 1845, and sharing with the late Sir Robert Peel the responsibility of that Act for the purposes of that policy, if on a fair, honest, and impartial investigation of the case it turned out that what had been intended by that Act had been honestly accomplished, then that he would be bound to continue to support the grant; and he (Mr. Napier) might say, that than this noble Earl, he believed a more honourable and highminded man did not exist in any community. That being the case, the question could not be considered from an individual point of view by any hon. Member —he would not, therefore, state to the House his own individual opinion with respect to the principle of the grant; but the justest and most honest course was to see what the purpose and principle of the Legislature had been—first, in establishing Maynooth, and then in increasing the amount of the grant enjoyed by that institution; and, assuming the principle of the grant to be a right one, capable of being carried out, and regarding the institution in the nature of a public trust, he would then proceed to consider whether it was not the right only, but the duty, of the House to inquire whether that trust was being honestly and effectually executed for the benefit of the Roman Catholics of Ireland. For he begged the House to bear in mind that the grant had not been made to the bishops and priests, although of course they were the agents through whom its objects were intended to be effectuated; but the grant had been made for the benefit of the Roman Catholic people of

1137
Ireland; and he (Mr. Kapler) should feel himself unworthy of the position which he occupied, if he did not add that the discussion of this question in all its bearings should be one of which justice and equity formed the basis, and which had for its ultimate object alone to secure to the people of Ireland professing the Roman Catholic religion the due administration of the large sum allotted annually for their benefit out of the public funds. To this end he should propose that the House should recur to the original establishment of May-nooth. Looking back to that period of Irish history he found it to be very instructive. The Roman Catholic religion in Ireland was then a Church and State in itself —a Church with a religion, and a State with a peculiar code of laws. On that occasion, the great mistake in the policy of this kingdom towards Ireland was, that the progress of the Roman Catholic religion was opposed by penal laws and persecution, instead of moderation and mercy, and thus hostility and ill will were produced in the minds of those whose good opinion and whose affection it was clearly the interest of England to cultivate. It was held that the tenets of the Roman Catholic religion were adverse to the duty of Roman Catholics as good subjects; and accordingly the oaths of 1773 and of 1793 involved abjuration of doctrines which were held to be inconsistent with the safety and well-being of the kingdom. These doctrines were now repudiated or disavowed by the Roman Catholic body; and, consequently, it was held that they were equally entitled to civil freedom and civil equality with any other of Her Majesty's subjects. These matters being abjured accordingly, and the oaths framed for antipapal purposes, subsequently a better system crept in gradually as regarded the Roman Catholics. In fact, according to Charles Butler, it was only in 1773 that they were first termed Roman Catholics—the oath commencing, "I, A. B., professing the Roman Catholic religion"—whereas, before, they were denominated, in all legal instruments, Papists. At that period, consequently, the Constitution began to be opened to the Roman Catholics. In 1787, the first great plan of national education—a plan which was worthy of notice at the present day—was proposed to the Irish Parliament by the then Secretary for Ireland, Mr. Orde, in a speech deserving of the utmost attention. That plan went to include all denomina-
1138
tions of Christians in the benefits of primary instruction, proceeding on the principle that though it might not be wise to give the public money directly for the purpose of teaching what was believed to be untrue, yet that it might be wise as well as just to give such money for education in those parts of learning common to all sects, and which involved common feelings as well as common interests on the part of each, and so to augment the general intelligence of the country, and the general spread of freedom among the people. The system of education, as brought forward by Mr. Orde, was brought forward for the purpose of propounding a principle, leaving the fruit of that principle to ripen with time. Soon after, Trinity College was voluntarily opened to Roman Catholics, not for the purposes of fellowships or scholarships, but for the purposes of education, and it was considered at the time as a great boon, which no doubt it then was. This country had been guilty of great injustice in depriving the Roman Catholics of obtaining the means of education; and nothing", was more certain than the fact that whatever Maynooth might be, it was the offspring of that wrong on the part of this country. In 1793, the University of Dublin was thrown open to Roman Catholics for the purposes of education, as he had stated—not for the purpose of obtaining offices there, because that would be contrary to the objects of the foundation, which were purely Protestant; and several Roman Catholics of distinction—among whom he might name the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Cogan), and the hon. and learned Member for Athlone (Mr. Keogh)—had received their education within its walls. In 1794, the Right Rev. Dr. Troy, the Roman Catholic titular metropolitan of Dublin, presented a memorial to the Government of the day, in which it was stated that the system of education required to qualify for the Roman Catholic priesthood was necessarily of a recluse nature, and that it could not be carried on in common with a lay education; and the memorial accordingly prayed for a licence to establish a Roman Catholic college, and aid wherewith to bring it into operation. In 1795, Maynooth was established accordingly. And here he (Mr. Napier) wished to call the attention of the House to that Act, for he believed that much misrepresentation prevailed on this subject. One party said, for instance, that it was intended as a re-

1139
ligious endowment, and that they objected to it because it did not teach the Word of God; another party, on the other hand, who were opposed to religious endowments, objected to it because it was not supported by voluntary means. But those who claimed the grant to Maynooth as a religious endowment, and those who objected to it because it was a religions endowment, had both placed themselves in a wrong position. The fact was, that Maynooth was not supported as a religious endowment, nor was it as an ecclesiastical endowment; it was as an educational institution, that, in short, which Dr. Troy had demanded in his memorial on the subject. It was an educational institution, designed for those who might have received their education at Trinity College, if that had not been too expensive, with the addition of the discipline and system of the Roman Catholic Church, so far as it did not trench upon the principles of religious liberty. He would notice, in passing, the argument that they were not to inquire into the religion taught at Maynooth—that they were to leave it hushed Up and secret—and that the representatives of constituencies which contributed Were not at liberty to inquire whether the money of the State was applied to the specific object and purpose for which it was given. This money was given for a certain avowed and professed purpose, which, as far as it went, was a lawful purpose; and being a State grant, he contended Parliament had a fight to inquire—nay, more, it was their duty to inquire, if the inquiry Were honestly conducted, and there was a fair motive and legitimate purpose for instituting inquiry. He contended it was their duty to those for whose benefit the grant was intended, to institute a fair, impartial inquiry into those material facts and circumstances which should enable them to say at the conclusion of that inquiry, "ay" or "no," did the means effectuate the object which it was professed they would effectuate for the benefit of the Roman Catholics in Ireland. The Duke of Wellington, when Secretary for Ireland, in 1808, said, in his speech proposing the annual grant to Maynooth, that the Government had not established that institution, only assisted it, and that it was not intended it should be maintained by the States—that the object of the Act was to enable the trustees to carry out a system of education which the country much needed. He referred the House to the memorial of Dr. Troy. He (Mr. Napier) had
1140
discovered a petition, dated 1799, from certain Roman Catholics in Ireland, trustees of Maynooth, which bore out this view of the case. It was as follows:—
"16th February, 1799.—A petition of the trustees appointed to carry into execution the Act of Parliament, entitled, An Act for the better Education of Persons professing the Popish, or Roman Catholic Religion, was presented to the House, and read, setting forth, that petitioners, with profound gratitude, acknowledge the munificent support granted them by the House, by Which they have been enabled to give effect to the wise and liberal views of Parliament, in providing the necessary accommodations, and in every respect accomplishing the full establishment of the seminary, agreeably to the statements submitted to the House; that petitioners express their firm reliance on the benevolence of the House, and their strong hope that the institution intrusted to them, become now efficient, will be found to contribute to the general prosperity of the kingdom, by diffusing the blessings of morality and religion throughout a large portion of its inhabitants, among whom a more faithful attachment to Government, and a more dutiful submission to the laws, must be naturally looked for from the zealous exertions of instructors who, in the inculcation of these important duties, must feel themselves urged by a strong impulse of gratitude to enforce and to illustrate the general principles on which these duties are founded; that petitioners have prepared an estimate of the annual expenses of the full establishment of the seminary, amounting to the sum of 8,0007., and therefore praying the House to enable them to provide the said sum of 8,000 l., in order to defray the expenses of the full establishment from the 25th of March, 1799, to the 25th of March, 1800.
"Ordered—That the said petition be referred to the consideration of a Committee. And a Committee was appointed of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Lord Viscount Castlereagh, and others, with power to send for persons, papers, and records.
"On the 22nd February, 1799, the Committee made their report, and amongst other things, reported that in their opinion the petitioners deserve the aid of Parliament."
This showed the professed purposes of the institution, and it also showed that the fund allotted for the maintenance of Maynooth was in the nature of a trust, which Parliament was not bound to uphold any longer than the institution was deserving of support. Down to the year 1845 there had been an annual grant for the maintenance of Maynooth, which proved that while on the one hand there existed no binding contract, on the other hand it morally amounted to an obligation of the same force, that if the objects for which that institution was established, had been carried out in the spirit that Parliament expected upon its establishment, Parliament would feel bound to give them some support. Under these circumstances the

1141
inquiry adverted to by his hon. and learned Friend by the Education Commissioners in 1824–5 took place. But how did the College of Maynooth come within the range of that inquiry? Not by name, but under the general head of all institutions for the purposes of education. It appeared that from 1795 to 1808 there had been educated in Maynooth annually about 250 free students. In 1808 the grant was slightly increased. The nomination of those free students was vested in the Roman Catholic bishops of Ireland. The Roman Catholic bishops had the arrangements amongst, themselves —they had the nomination of the whole number of 250 students of the College of Maynooth. The Roman Catholic prelates had both the nomination and the patronage of the college. The Act 35 Geo. III. c. 21, empowered trustees to receive subscriptions and donations, to endow and establish an academy for the better education of persons professing the Roman Catholic religion. The Roman Catholic bishops had the nomination and patronage of the Maynooth College—the students of which were supported out of the funds provided by Parliament; for he was not aware that any large number of students were supported out of any other fund. Here, then, was a great public trust supported out of the common taxation of the Empire, provided by Parliament; and now that the annual control of the funds was taken away from Parliament by the Act of 1845, it was the more imperatively necessary to see that the money was properly disbursed and applied to those purposes intended by the Act. It was a public trust, and it was a right and duty to see that trust honestly fulfilled. The object of the grant was to teach moral and social duties, and to rear up a domestic priesthood for Ireland. If opposite doctrines were taught at Maynooth, then the original compact with the country was violated. The Maynooth College was an educational establishment, and thus within the Commission of 1824. An inquiry did take place by a Commission, who were empowered to inquire into the system of education at Maynooth. Whatever the circumstances which justified an inquiry in 1824, the existence of the same circumstances at this time more strongly justified an inquiry. As to the visitatorial power which existed at the time, that power, which was limited and restricted, was treated in 1808 by Lord Redesdale as a nullity. With respect to the question of inquiry he
1142
would say that by whatever tribunal the investigation was to be made, the tribunal had no right to conduct that inquiry so as to violate conscientious feelings. The object which such a tribunal ought to have in view was to get at truth, without giving just offence to any one, or violating religious liberty. His hon. Friend who had adverted to the Commission in 1824–7 had concurred in the eulogium which had been passed on the members of that Commission, composed, as it was, of persons of learning and station, amongst whom were to be found Mr. Blake and Baron Poster. This Commission did not inquire or examine into the tenets of the Roman Catholic religion, except where connected with civil duties and the relations of Roman Catholics to the State and their fellow-subjects. These, he might presume, were legitimate subjects of inquiry, not involving any violation of the principles of religious liberty. The Commission stated that the subjects of inquiry were—First, as to oaths and vows, their obligations, and the dispensing power of Pope and bishops. Second, the opinions on oath and declaration of allegiance under the 13 &14 Geo. III., c. 35, and the 33 Geo. III., c. 21—those were the oaths which embodied the renunciation of all doctrines hostile to the constitution. Third, the Grallican liberties, and how far received or rejected. Fourth, Ultramontane and Cisalpine doctrines, how far received and taught. Sixth, canon law, how far binding in Ireland. Seventh, the class-books. Eighth, views of the proposers, and also as to any relations between the college and the order of Jesuits. Now, what did the Commissioners say in reference to that part of the report relating to the examination of witnesses? They said they did not agree in the conclusions which were to be drawn from their examination of witnesses, though the subjects which they examined into constituted the most important part of the inquiry. They said they could not analyse, comment on them, or come to any conclusion among themselves. They left it in dubio. Now, if they did not come to any conclusion, the consequence to be expected was that every man would have his own opinion as to the result of the evidence obtained by the Commission. The House would see there had been an inquiry; and yet upon several important subjects connected with that inquiry the Commission were not able to come to a conclusion. On that important

1143
branch of educational inquiry, there was so much diversity of opinion, owing to correction and suppression of evidence, that no special report could be made, and the inquiry was both unsatisfactory and imperfect. Now he asked the House confidently to say, if it was important an inquiry should take place into the subject, why was it important? It was important because it was necessary to understand what were the views taught at the College of Maynooth. The Commission were not able to come to any conclusion; but then it was said they were to look at the Act of 1845; that Sir Robert Peel was aware of the evidence to which he had referred at that time, and thus hon. Members sought to place them under the authority of the late Sir Robert Peel, in order to coerce their opinion and actions at this time. Now he begged sincerely to say that no one in that House was more desirous of speaking with tenderness and respect of the late Sir Robert Peel than he was, for he had ever received kindness and esteem at his hands, though not honoured with his personal acquaintance. He readily admitted the great talents of Sir Robert Peel, and that he always exhibited the manner and temper of a statesman; but on questions of this kind he (Mr. Napier) refused to surrender his judgment to the authority of any statesman whatever, and therefore looking at the evidence and the conclusion which was purposely left in dubio, he found nothing to bind him to say it was not necessary to have a further and searching inquiry into the subject, more particularly as recent events had rendered such inquiry imperatively necessary. If the Irish Roman Catholic priesthood were to have the advantage of a more liberal system of education, it was doubly important for the Legislature to see into the matter, and to avail itself of the investigation made by the Commission which pointed out certain heads of inquiry which had not been fully gone into. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. J. O'Connell) admitted if any subjects were not inquired into by the Commission, and causes could be shown to exist why that inquiry ought to take place, then that it was fit and proper the inquiry should take place. Let the House see how the matter existed in 1845; what was the conduct and character of the Roman Catholic Church at that time? It was important to ascertain what were the feelings and the views of the Roman Catholics at
1144
that time, and before the Emancipation Act passed. In doing this he would avoid needless cause for irritation. He yielded to no man in attachment to the faith he professed; but he would never do violence to the feelings of others, or suffer himself to be misrepresented with respect to feelings which he did not entertain. He would commence the inquiry into the position and views of the Roman Catholic Church by referring to the evidence of Dr. Doyle, who, in 1822, in an address to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, said—
"In this country your religion is not only tolerated, but protected by the law. It is clear, then, that on the score of religion your conspiracies are without an object, and it is the angel of darkness, who transforms himself into an angel of light, that he may seduce you to violate all the charities of the Gospel, under the appearance of zeal for the faith."
After that address the inquiry took place, and the inquiry, as he had shown, left the matter in dubio. Then came the settlement by the Act of 1829. It was important to advert to the Act of 1829, because that settlement ought never to have been departed from. They had the evidence of the Roman Catholic bishops in 1829, and that evidence would supply much that was deficient in 1825. All were familiar with the evidence given before Parliament in 1829, and they had an address in 1830 to the Roman Catholics, signed by the bishops, the professions in which ought never to be lost sight of. The address stated—
"That Legislature which raised you up from your prostrate condition, and gave to you without reserve all the privileges you desired—is not that Legislature entitled to your reverence and love? We trust that your feelings on this subject are in unison with our own, and that a steady attachment to the constitution and laws of your country, as well as to the person and government of your Gracious Sovereign, will be manifest in your entire conduct. Labour, therefore, in all things to promote the end which the Legislature contemplated, &c.,—viz., the pacification and improvement of Ireland."
And it goes on to add—
"If sowers of discord or sedition should attempt to trouble your repose, seek for a safeguard against them in the protection afforded by the law."
In 1834 the Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops of Ireland, the Most Rev. Dr. Murray presiding, adopted the following resolutions:—
"Resolved, that our chapels are not to be used in future for the purpose of holding therein any public meeting, except in cases connected with charity or religion; and that we do hereby pledge

1145
ourselves to carry this resolution into effect in our respective dioceses.
"Resolved, that while we do not intend to interfere with the civil rights of those entrusted to our care, yet, as guardians of religion, justly apprehending that its general interest, as well as the honour of the priesthood, would be compromised by a deviation from the line of conduct which we marked out for ourselves and impressed upon the minds of our clergy in our pastoral address of the year 1830, we do hereby pledge ourselves, on our return to our respective dioceses, to remind our clergy of the instructions we then addressed to them, and to recommend to them most earnestly to avoid in future any allusions at their altars to political subjects, and carefully to refrain from connecting themselves with political clubs, acting as chairmen or secretaries at political meetings, or moving or seconding resolutions on such occasions, in order that we exhibit ourselves in all things in the character of our sacred calling, as ministers of Christ and dispensers of the mysteries of God."
These addresses and resolutions were after the Emancipation Act had passed, after the great question had been settled, and after the Roman Catholics had been placed on an equality with other religious persuasions, and after they had got civil equality and religious freedom. The question that arose was, had the policy laid down in the declarations of the Roman Catholic hierarchy been acted upon and carried out? If it could he shown to have been acted upon, then all would be right, and would set at rest those questions of doctrines and teachings at Maynooth which had recently been raised. Well, then, he would now proceed to ask, had no change taken place since 1845 sufficient to affect the foundation of the grant to the College of Maynooth? Was it necessary to inquire into the doctrines taught at Maynooth, and alleged not only to be inconsistent with the terms of the grant to Maynooth, but inconsistent with the constitution of the country? He asserted that every one who was truly attached to the Constitution of these realms, and who was willing to be guided and governed by the laws of the kingdom, whatever might be their religious opinions, ought to be anxious to set himself against doctrines subversive of the rights of the Crown and the Constitution. He would now refer to a memorial of the trustees of the Roman Catholic College at Maynooth, addressed to Lord Heytesbury when Lord Lieutenant General of Ireland. After alluding to the early history of the institution, it speaks
"of the Catholic population increasing in an incalculable proportion, with an incredible diffusion of knowledge through all classes of the people, which required a corresponding advancement in the learning as well as in the number of their
1146
spiritual instructors. Notwithstanding the parsimonious curtailment of expenditure, as appears from the decayed state of the college buildings, and the total want of accommodation and conveniences through the establishment described above, yet not one-half the number of priests required for the mission of Ireland is educated, and the education of that number exceedingly abridged. They speak of the institution as destined to supply the spiritual wants of seven millions of British subjects in Ireland; and if doomed to go on without an increased support, the alternative will be that one-half of the Catholic population must be left without pastors, or priests insufficiently educated must be sent out to preside over their respective congregations as they may. They add that by an increase of the Parliamentary grant on the same terms as of the former grant, sufficient to provide for the better education of at least 500 students, to improve their accommodation by the erection of new buildings and the reparation of the old, the trustees will be enabled to carry out fully the benevolent intentions of the Government in the original establishment of the college, a great occasion of national discontent will be removed, and the whole Catholic population, with the Catholic priesthood, will acknowledge a deep debt of gratitude for the concession."
It was on that view of the question that Lord Derby supported the Act of 1845. He should be happy to find his own opinion overborne by the opinion of others who would be able to find in the success of the policy pursued towards the Roman Catholics a justification of the grant. Had the policy pursued by Government made a favourable impression, and had the Roman Catholic bishops and clergy of Ireland, by their conduct and proceedings, set an example to the Irish people of submission to the law? Had the grant to Maynooth been applied to the education of the priesthood so as to give to the Irish people a well-educated, loyal, and peaceable priesthood? If these things could be proved to have taken place, then the grant was a just and serviceable act. Before God he solemnly asserted it would give him sincere pleasure, if inquiry were conceded, and it should be found that the trust had been faithfully and justly carried out. But the recent grounds which made up a case for inquiry, were patent to all. It was the object of Government and the House to get the truth. Let the House recollect what they did by the Act of 1845; they increased the number of students at Maynooth, and they thereby increased the patronage of the Roman Catholic bishops. The noble Lord opposite said the present was a vindictive movement on account of the recent aggression of the Court of Rome. The noble Lord asked what had that aggression to do with Maynooth?

1147
and said it was unworthy of any Ministry to retaliate in such a way. He admitted it was unworthy of a Government to retaliate; hut he asserted that the instinct of self-preservation made it a duty to repel aggression. It was not an aggression of Rome only; it was also an aggression of the Roman Catholic episcopate on the country. He would remind the House that Archbishop Cullen — he would not call him an Italian priest—was one of the trustees of Maynooth. Archbishop Slattery was another. Archbishop M'Hale another. These Roman Catholic prelates had the nomination of the students—the 500 free students of Maynooth. The Irish Roman Catholic hierarchy had not only got the selection of the priesthood, hut they had got the money; they had got more— they had got the allocation of those persons, when educated as priests, in their dioceses. Now, he would ask the House if it was in common sense and reason to leave the trust as it now stood—the nominations, and money, and appointments, being wholly in the hands of the Roman Catholic hierarchy? He would put the case fairly and boldly to the House. Could they, as members of an independent Church —with the knowledge of the purposes for which the Maynooth grant was made— could they believe that those, purposes would be carried out by leaving that large sum of public money in the hands of persons who had declared themselves in favour of the Ultramontane policy? [Cries of "No!"] He could prove his assertion. There had been a meeting recently of Roman Catholic prelates in Dublin, and at that meeting they passed a resolution against an Act of Parliament; they had done more, for since passing that resolution they had issued another resolution, to the effect that they would only obey just laws. They passed a resolution to violate an Act of Parliament. They said that they were bound in conscience to violate it. Here he wished there should be no mistake. If since 1829 there could be shown any legislation to have occurred which took away any one lawful right or privilege of the Roman Catholic laity or priesthood secured by that Act of 1829, he would consent at once to put his name on the hack of a Bill to repeal the Act which so deprived Roman Catholics of the rights solemnly secured to them. The same religious freedom they enjoyed in 1834 they still had; and yet the Roman Catholic prelates had chosen to pass sentence on an
1148
Act of Parliament which only declared the law of 1829. They who had done this had got the nomination of the students of Maynooth in their hands. Now if these persons set up their own judgment against the law of the land, and if they made a declaration which violated the law of 1829, what, he would ask, was that but practically adopting Ultramontane doctrines? He asserted that the step taken by those Roman Catholic prelates in violating a law, was Ultramontanism. It was carrying out Ultramontane doctrines to sit in judgment and to denounce any law of the land. He would not be afraid to speak the truth, or to put the case on its merits. He asserted that the Ultramontane policy would be set up if the matter was left as it now stood, and without inquiry or investigation. So far from effectuating the purposes of the grant to Maynooth, that of providing a well-educated loyal priesthood, which should prove advantageous to the Roman Catholic Church and to the Constitution of the country, if the matter was left where it now stood, those purposes would be frustrated. It was said that the doctrines and practices of the Roman Catholic Church did not trench on the Constitution of the country. Be that as it may, he asserted that by the policy now pursued they were putting funds derived from the public treasury into the hands of foreign agents for their own purposes. Were they, then, with their eyes open, to suffer all these things? Were they to suffer these large funds to go into such a channel for such purposes? He put it to the common sense and reason of that House whether this would not be the inevitable result if some check was not put on the present system—that the Court of Rome would continue to demand to have a direct control over the Irish Roman Catholic bishops, the same as the bishops had a direct control over the Maynooth students? But it was said that the Roman Catholic priesthood only did that which was done by the Irish Protestant clergy. Was ever anything so preposterous asserted? The Irish clergy had no law to give them power to take the education of the Protestant clergy into their own hands. The schools had public grants; but there was no law to say they must accept it, or that required them to sign a resolution to violate an Act of Parliament on account, as alleged, of conscientious scruples. But they now had mandates from the Court of Rome to override the law. It was said that certain re. solutions by the Roman Catholic laity of

1149
Ireland had been passed, in consequence of the letter of the noble Lord. His opinion was that the conduct of the Irish Roman Catholic bishops since 1845, in setting up the Ultramontane policy, by which the domestic election of the Roman Catholic clergy was superseded, had placed the Maynooth grant in a totally different light. This, he asserted, was a proper subject of inquiry. The foreign interference with the civil and temporal affairs of the country —the recommendation of disobedience to law to the Roman Catholic clergy—made it obvious that the public had a right to require investigation and reconsideration of the grant. He did not mean to advise the taking away the grant, but he advised an inquiry into the fact whether or no the grant had been carried out in conformity to that policy which had induced the House to pass it. If they found there was a general concurrence in the demand for inquiry, then the question to be determined was, how was the inquiry to be conducted —by Royal Commission or by any other mode? With regard to a Royal Commission, that mode was open to objection, and there were also other objections to a Commission of Inquiry. But he thought a Parliamentary Committee might with advantage be entrusted with the inquiry. He would frankly say he did not wish to accelerate the inquiry. Readmitted with the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Serjeant Murphy) that bitter times had been gone through, and that, though so much real suffering had been endured, the people, as a body, had conducted themselves with much temper. But he consented, when time and manner were suitable, to have the inquiry conducted calmly and dispassionately. He was sorry to hear old stories thrown out which had not a word of foundation. He was sorry to hear the old exaggerations respecting the Church property in Ireland. He was sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) and the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord John Russell) tell the House to take care what they did in respect to Maynooth: they said if the House carried the question for inquiry, they might excite a determination to alter the present Irish ecclesiastical system. They were told in effect, that although it might be necessary and proper to have a fair and impartial inquiry with regard to the educational system of Maynooth, in order to carry out more honestly and effectively the real and declared purposes
1150
for which a grant was made out of the common taxation of the empire, they were not to venture to take that step. He could only say, as a representative of the Church, that he was not to be deterred from taking the course he thought advisable. If the righthon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) would bring forward any measure affecting the Established Church of Ireland, he (Mr. Napier) would listen to him with patience, and give the most candid consideration to his propositions. He admitted that that Church had, in earlier days, grossly neglected its duties; but, in later times, with a more simple and scriptural agency, it had diffused among the people, frequently in their native language, the word of God. He thought the question of the Irish Church was entirely distinct from that now under their consideration; but if any measure with regard to that Church should be submitted to the House, it might be fairly and fully discussed. In the meantime, however, he thought it was their duty to see that the Maynooth grant was rightly and honourably applied to the purposes for which it was designed, and he hoped that a fair, deliberate, and impartial investigation would be instituted.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman having misunderstood a passage in a speech which he (Mr. Gladstone) had delivered on this subject, he was desirous of saying a few words in explanation. His right hon. Friend seemed to have supposed him to have intimated that if the House of Commons was prepared to inquire into the condition of the College of Maynooth, it must also be prepared for the reconstruction of the ecclesiastical arrangements in Ireland. It would be in the recollection of the House that his right hon. Friend was quite mistaken on this point. What he (Mr. Gladstone) stated, was, that he was prepared to accede to this Motion for inquiry, but that if the House was prepared to depart from the principle upon which the endowment of Maynooth was granted in 1845, it must also be prepared for what he thought the necessary consequence—the consideration of the reconstruction of ecclesiastical arrangements in Ireland. His right hon. Friend seemed to suppose that he (Mr. Gladstone) was prepared to bring forward a proposal with that object, and that when it was brought forward he (Mr. Napier) should be disposed to consider it fairly. He was much obliged to his right hon. Friend; but he (Mr. Gladstone) not only did not intend to make any

1151
such proposal, but he should most earnestly deprecate such a proposition being made. His object was only to point out to the House dangers of a very serious character in the course at present recommended, to which he thought the eyes of hon. Members opposite were not so open as was desirable.
MR. C. FORTESCUErose to protest against the speech of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, and of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the whole animus and tendency of the policy which they advocated towards the Roman Catholics of Ireland. This sort of theological controversy would have the effect of driving many good men out of that House. The speeches of the Attorney General for Ireland and of the Home Secretary were mere echoes of that "No-Popery" agitation which was got up out of doors, and which he looked upon as one of the most deplorable signs of the times. That agitation might be described as the influence of the unthinking many over the thinking few, and it was at this moment coercing the intellects and consciences of numbers of hon. Gentlemen who were about to meet their constituents on the hustings. There appeared to be no end to the "No-Popery" cry against our Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen. One might have expected that when the Emancipation Bill was passed, that cry would have ceased—one might have hoped that a new era would then have begun—that religious equality would thenceforth prevail; but it seemed that we were doomed to disappointment. The fact was that the Emancipation Bill was not carried with the hearty concurrence of the people of this country; it was carried by the influence of a few public men. In the same way the Act which the House was now considering might be said to have been carried by the influence of one great man alone. It was quite plain to his (Mr. Fortescue's) mind, that the people of this country had not made up their minds to accept the consequences of the Emancipation Act. They had not made up their minds to recognise to a full and just extent the claims of their Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen. They had not made up their minds to permit to the Church of Rome that full freedom of action and speech which she conceived to be necessary. By the Emancipation Act, we pretended to set the Roman Catholics of this country at liberty; but the moment they seemed inclined to avail themselves of that liberty,
1152
we attempted to put them in chains again. There could be no doubt that if this paltry sum of 26,000 l. were taken away from the Roman Catholics of Ireland, the ecclesiastical question in that country would at once be raised, amidst a storm of agitation, instead of being settled, as it ought to be, by an amicable compromise. He believed the day would come when such a compromise must take place. He would not attempt to say in what way that most difficult subject was to be settled, but he was quite sure that it must be made on the principle of entire religious equality. The principle of religious ascendancy for any Church would not be allowed to enter into the settlement of that question. He thought it was the duty of that House to set themselves against the "No-Popery" agitation out of doors. He knew no subject on which representatives ought to be more careful not to be led away by their constituents. He knew no subject on which public men were more bound to take the lead of rather than to follow the multitude. He knew no subject which was better calculated to serve party and political purposes than the "No-Popery" cry. To his mind there were only two reasons which could justify the House in entering into the proposed injury, namely, the strongest suspicion of absolute immorality being inculcated in the College of Maynooth, or of absolute disloyalty towards the Crown being advised by the superintendents and teachers. He felt that the proposed inquiry could do no good: it would but produce bitterness between the Protestants and Roman Catholics of Ireland. He implored the House not to be the means of producing such a lamentable state of things. He sympathised with the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell), who said, though a Roman Catholic, he was perfectly willing to vote for this inquiry: if he (Mr. Fortes-cue) were a Roman Catholic, he should be inclined to take the same course. Such a feeling did credit to the hon. Gentleman; but, as a Protestant, he should feel it his duty to resist a Motion so painful to the feelings of Roman Catholics. He should vote against the inquiry as unworthy of that House, and of a great country.
MR. HENRY DRUMMONDsaid, that, before he ventured to touch upon this extremely complicated question, he must remind the hon. Gentleman who first spoke that evening, that he should bear continually in mind two ideas—ideas, no doubt, exceedingly unpleasant to some persons.

1153
The one was, that Ireland was a Roman Catholic country; the other was, that the Church in Ireland—the Anglican Episcopal Church—was originally planted by the bayonet, without ever converting the people, and that it had been, from that day to this, a continual source of irritation. We may look at these things as we will, but there they are. When the hon. Member for North Warwickshire said he desired an inquiry, they naturally presumed that such inquiry would be conducted by a Committee of that House, of which, of course, the hon. Gentleman would himself be the working "president, and would be assisted by several Gentlemen whom he would himself name. But what was the hon. Member going to inquire into? The hon. Gentleman said, into the doctrines taught at Maynooth. He (Mr. Drum-mond) begged to inform the hon. Gentleman that he must be a little more accurate. The Roman Catholic authorities divided what they called doctrine into two totally different parts. The one was theologia dogmatica —surely the hon. Gentleman was not going to inquire into that. The other was theologia moralis, and into that the hon. Gentleman might possibly inquire. But then the Motion of the hon. Gentleman ought to state that he proposed an inquiry into the doctrines taught at Maynooth, so far as they related to morals and politics. The Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Napier) had said, that this was an educational question; but the hon. Gentleman who brought forward the Motion, and nearly all the petitions presented to the House, had treated it altogether as a doctrinal question, with which that House was totally incompetent to deal. Unfortunately a few days ago an enormous blue book, which of course every hon. Gentleman had read, had been presented to the House. From that book they learned that all the theology those hon. Members who might have had the good fortune to be educated at Oxford were expected to learn, was comprised in the Four Gospels and Acts of the Apostles in Greek; the contents, historical and doctrinal, of the books of the Old and New Testament; the Thirty-nine Articles, with proofs from Scripture; and the evidences of religion. Now, he had very great objections to the perversion of Christian ethics which some Popish priests inculcated; but he must do them the justice to say, that they were much better instructed on doctrinal points than Protestants. The
1154
Report to which he had referred went on to say—
"Learned theologians are very rare in the University, and in consequence they are still rarer elsewhere. No efficient means at present exist in the University for training candidates for holy orders in those studies which belong peculiarly to their profession."
What means have we, therefore, of instituting an efficient inquiry into the doctrines taught at Maynooth? Another very awkward matter they would have to get over, was, that a strong memorial, signed, he believed, by forty-nine Members of that House, had been presented to the Queen by the Earl of Shaftesbury, backed by many Peers, requesting Her Majesty to take steps to do away with the sacramental system of the Church of England. Now, if a Church was not a thing appointed by God for the administration of sacraments, it was nothing but a mere lecture-room, in which the congregation elected the teacher; and he really thought they had all cause to rejoice that there was such a Church as the Roman Catholic Church which would stand up for the divine institutions of a hierarchy and the sacraments. He must say, that if the Committee now moved for should be appointed, he would feel it his duty to object to the nomination upon it of any Member of that House who had signed that memorial. The hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. Serjeant Murphy) had said that this was not a true Motion, meaning that it was brought forward, not because the public cared a rush about Maynooth, but because it was in truth a continuation of the debates of last year upon the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. Now, he (Mr. Drum-mond) confessed he believed that that was the truth. He should be very sorry to say anything to offend, and he had never addressed the House under greater apprehensions of doing so. He would therefore not express his own opinion, but the opinion of other parties, and in their language. It was not necessary for him to describe what were the doctrines and character of the Jesuits. The whole Roman Catholic world knew what they were, and if he was wrong, he erred with the Roman Catholic world. Every Roman Catholic statesman, every Roman Catholic Sovereign, and the whole body of the Roman Catholic laity, had declared that their doctrines were incompatible with the existence of society, and that if they were allowed to prevail, the peace of States could not be preserved. The Pope confirmed that opinion, and suppressed the order.

1155
But that order was now dominant in the Church of Rome. Their reprobated doctrines were now, for the first time, sanctioned by the highest authority in the Church of Rome. These doctrines were all brought together in one work, and the author of that work was declared by the Propaganda and the Pope to be a person who had never written one word deserving of censure. That work was made the authorised doctrine for Roman Catholics in this country. Cardinal Wiseman and the late Dr. Griffiths had sanctioned the work to which he referred—the Life of Liguori, by Faber; and Cardinal Wiseman had thus given his approval to the doctrines of the Jesuits. He would not describe those doctrines—the whole Roman Catholic body had done it for him. Many Gentlemen must have read Pascal for the sake of his beautiful French; but none of them ever dreamt that what he wrote about was a matter of practical importance on the day on which we are speaking. Nevertheless, that was the fact. Now, see what had been the consequences. Last year, when the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) brought forward a Bill, which he (Mr. Drummond) thought most futile and foolish, that measure was described in print by Cardinal Wiseman and by Dr. Ullathorne as a most unjust aggression upon them, because there was no intention whatever on their part to do anything beyond providing for the better internal arrangements of the Roman Catholic Church in this country. But, unfortunately, there was in another place an alter ego of the Pope, who did not know the advantage of practising the mental reservation and equivocation taught by Liguori. M. Luquet, the Pope's nuncio in Geneva, wrote thus to Sir Robert Peel:—
"You said, 'the Rome of to-day is still the Rome of Gregory VII.' I will add that it is also the Rome of Gregory I., to whom England is indebted for the faith."
That was not true; but never mind—
"He made against your country an aggression, the result of which was to liberate the freemen in it from the slavery of infidelity. The aggression of Pius IX., be well assured of it, has the same object, for the single, but ardent desire, of Pius IX., as of all of us, is to break in pieces the chains under which, in the name of liberty, Protestantism crushes your souls. I will add that the aggression of Pius IX., like that of St. Gregory, will have for its certain result the restoration of a great number among you to this interior liberty, which belongs only to the children of God."
Now, they had here a full and accurate description of the object of the Roman
1156
Catholic priests, whose firm conviction was that they ought to have the government of the whole world in their hands, and that everybody was bound to swear that white was black, or black white, at their dictation. He believed the people of this country were exceedingly irritated on this subject, because they regarded the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill as wholly inadequate to meet the difficulty. Now, he begged to observe, that though this irritation existed from one end of the country to the other, no itinerant mob-speakers had been getting up the meetings. Petitions had been presented signed by hundreds of thousands of well-educated people; and when they found a large and intelligent mass of the community thus coming forward, they might depend upon it that the petitioners were right in the main. John Bull was a blunt honest fellow, and he would not swallow the cant of giving a secondary allegiance to the Queen, and a first allegiance to the Pope. The hon. and learned Member for Cork had said that Roman Catholic priests had kept the people of Ireland quiet in 1848; but here was an extract from a letter written by an Irish priest to the editor of the Tablet, and dated the 12th of August, 1848:—
"I believe with you, that an armed rising of the people would be the excess of madness, because I believe with you that, comparing the manifold elements of strength on the part of the English Government, we have no chance of success. On this ground therefore, and on this ground alone, I firmly believe the great mass of the clergy are opposed to insurrection."
If hon. Gentleman had any doubts about the intentions of the priests, let them go to Paris, where they would hear officers talking with great joy of the probable invasion of Ireland whenever the priests had sufficiently roused the people. He had heard a new convert to Rome express his readiness to follow his new master, the Pope, because, whatever was for the Pope's interest, he said, he deemed to be paramount to every other consideration. He (Mr. Drummond) did not believe the wicked doctrines of the priests had yet made much way among the laity; and, while he still had faith in the common sense, and common honesty, and common courage of Englishmen, he set these Italian doctrines at defiance,
MR. FRESHFIELDmoved the adjournment of the debate.
Motion made, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, he

1157
understood the movement contemplated by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and believed that the same game was to be played over again that was played before the vacation. The House should not divide on the question of adjournment without they came to a clear understanding as to the day and hour to which it was proposed to adjourn.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, the House must first decide whether the debate should be adjourned or not. After that question had been decided, then would come the question of fixing the time for resuming it.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, it was usual for Gentlemen who solicited an adjournment to give some reason for so doing. If the hon. Member had moved an adjournment till six o'clock, and that the adjourned debate take precedence of notices of Motion, such a Motion would have commended itself to the good sense and feelings of the House. Until some satisfactory explanation was given of the real purpose for which the adjournment had been moved, he would resist it.
MR. SPOONERsaid, this was neither the first nor the second time that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Anstey) had brought unfounded charges against him. According to the forms of the House, he was quite aware he might adjourn the debate or not. ["Oh!"] He did not know what the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Anstey) meant by crying"Oh!"he supposed it was something very satirical in his own mind, but the House was not all anxious to know it. With regard to the question of the hon. Gentlemen as to his (Mr. Spooner's) reasons for adjourning the debate, he would give him two answers. He was willing to yield his opportunity of reply; much as he had been accused of wishing to bring on this debate through certain motives, he was willing to forego that right, and to divide immediately if the hon. Gentleman would accede to that. Another proposition he had to make was, that if hon. Gentlemen who had notices of Motion for to-night would forego their notices, he would agree to adjourn the discussion till six o'clock. If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lambeth (Mr. D'Eyncourt), whose notice stood first upon the list of notices of Motion for to-night, agreed to this proposal, he (Mr. Spooner) made no doubt other hon. Members would follow his good example, especially those hon. Gentlemen who had been of late heaping abuse after abuse upon him (Mr. Spooner), and stating
1158
that this was only an electioneering proceeding; who had charged him with never intending to bring forward this question, and had charged him with dishonesty— charges upon which he wished to set himself right with the House. In the first place, he had been accused of altering his Motion, He never did alter his Motion. [Cries of "Divide!"]
The O'GORMAN MAHONsaid, the Motion then before the House was, that the debate be now adjourned, and he was sure it was quite unintentional on the part of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire that he had gone into the general question. He could say to that hon. Gentleman, that amongst those who he said had opposed him there was an exception. That exception was himself (The O'Gorman Mahon); for, in the absence of that hon. Gentleman, he had expressed his own gratitude for former services.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.
MR. SPOONERresumed: His Motion had been duly entered on the book. He was now charged with having afterwards altered it. He denied that fact, and he would prove it. He admitted that hon. Gentlemen in looking over the Votes of (he House might be mistaken as to the fact, because, by some mistake, though he gave notice of a specific Motion, the entry made in the book was entered merely as a renewal of an old Motion. That was a mistake; but he was willing to take the blame of it on himself, because there was so much accuracy in everything transacted at the table of the House, and because he did not give his notice in writing, he believed the fault was his, and he was willing to take the blame of it. But he had taken the trouble to examine those usual sources of information which conveyed the proceedings of that House to the public, and, generally, with so much accuracy; and he found in several of the morning papers of the 11th of February this notice:—"Mr. Spooner stated that, on that day fortnight, he would move for a Select Committee to inquire into the state of education in the College of Maynooth." Here, then, was the specific notice of a specific Motion to be made, and he was now charged with giving up that Motion in order to carry out the views of the Government. But the House would observe that this notice was given ten or twelve days, or a fortnight, before there was any change of Govern-

1159
ment; and he could say that, since there had been a change of Government, he never had any communication with any Member of the Government on the subject. The Motion he would now submit was, that this debate be adjourned till after the other Orders of the Day, in the hope that the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. D'Eyncourt) would withdraw the Motion of which he had given notice; and if he did so he had no doubt his example would be followed.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be adjourned till after the Orders of the Day this day."
MR. TENNYSON D'EYNCOURTwould be very sorry to stand in the way of the hon. Member; at the same time his hon. Friend must recollect that his Motion was an Order of the Day, and he could put off to any other day. The Motion of his hon. Friend was, he admitted, one of a very interesting nature to his (Mr. D'Eyncourt's) constituents, particularly on the eve of a dissolution; but he thought that his (Mr.D'Eyncourt's) Motion (for shortening the duration of Parliament) was quite as interesting, and much more capable of being led to a practical conclusion. Unless, therefore, it was the wish of the House, very strongly expressed, he would feel himself under the necessity of persevering with his Motion.
MR. SPEAKERwas about to put the question, when
The O'GORMAN MAHONrose, and expressed a hope that the hon. Member (Mr. Anstey) would not press for a division after the proposition of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. He trusted the debate would not be allowed to drag its slow length along day after day, but would be brought to a conclusion at once.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, in the present state of the public business, it would be most expedient that the debate—if it was necessary to continue it—should be continued to-day. He suggested to the House that, considering the state of the public busines, and the discussions that had already taken place upon the subject, perhaps it would be best, upon the whole, to divide at once upon the main question.
MR. REYNOLDSsaid, he might repeat what he had stated before—that he, as a Roman Catholic representative of that House, did not deem it his duty to oppose the Motion. In saying that, he was not shrinking from inquiry into Maynooth,
1160
neither did those whom he had the honour to represent, nor those with whom he had the pleasure to act. But what he did complain of was—and he referred more particularly to the remark of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who invited them to divide at once. That was a game which might suit that right hon. Gentleman, but did not suit him (Mr. Reynolds) and his friends. There were certain hon. Members on his side of the House who were prepared to speak against the Motion, though they might not be prepared to vote against it, but who wished to speak with reference to the Motion itself. But he could not omit addressing the House with reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, who stated that certain motives had been imputed to him respecting this Motion by various hon. Members, but made an exception in favour of the hon. and gallant Member for Ennis. [The O'GORMAN MAHON: Hear!] He perceived the hon. Gentleman cheered the word "gallant." When he (Mr. Rey-holds) had the honour of last addressing the House upon the Motion for an adjournment, he was followed by the hon. Member for Ennis, who took him to task in very unmeasured terms. He spoke of his (Mr. Reynolds') manner and of his language, and he talked a great deal of what they called, in Ireland, "tall English;" and he certainly made use also of a good deal of bad French. But, passing from his manner, he would proceed to his matter; and he (Mr. Reynolds) took that opportunity of telling him that the letter of credit he attempted to draw in favour of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire was not accepted by him. The hon. Member for Ennis stated that he (Mr. Reynolds), as a Roman Catholic, had a right to be thankful to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire for his liberality to his (Mr. Reynolds') creed. He (Mr. Reynolds) had searched the Journals of this House, and he found that, since the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Spooner) had had a seat in that House, upon every occasion he had recorded his vote against his (Mr. Reynolds') creed and country; and that when the Bill was brought in to endow Maynooth with 26,000 l. a year, he voted against it. He (Mr. Reynolds) also found, that during the debates on the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, there were fifty-five divisions, and the hon. Member (Mr. Spooner) had voted in fifty of them at least. The hon. Gentleman had, in fact, voted for all the obnoxious and insulting clauses—he voted for the clause

1161
which he (Mr. Reynolds) designated as the Walpole clause, and he voted for the Thesiger clause, and the common informer clause; and after all that, he (Mr. Reynolds) wanted to know how the hon. Member for Ennis could stand up and state that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire was a friend to the Catholic Church? He was not blaming the hon. Member for his votes; he conceded to him what he claimed for himself—sincerity in every vote which he gave; but he protested against an Irish Roman Catholic Member throwing the mantle of his protection over an hon. Member who never omitted an opportunity to insult his creed. He had a right to enter his protest against that, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman (The O'Gorman Mahon) would take that opportunity of retracting what he had said. He invited him now before this House, and before the country, to lay his hand upon any one vote by which the hon. Member (Mr. Spooner) voted in favour of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, or an extension of their liberties. With reference to the question of adjournment, he (Mr. Reynolds) made no objection to the debate being resumed at six o'clock, or from day to day till the debate was finished. He would only express a hope that if the Committee were granted, the House would spare the Catholics of Ireland the pain of seeing the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Spooner) chairman of that Committee; but if he should be appointed to that position, he hoped they would make the hon. Member for Ennis vice-chairman.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, it appeared to him that they ought, in the first instance, to decide whether they would adjourn till to-morrow; because if they did not so adjourn, the debate might be resumed this day. He had himself a Motion on the paper for that evening upon a question which might not appear from its name to be a very interesting one—namely, the repeal of the post-horse duty; and if the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. D'Eyn-court) did not feel inclined to give way, he (Mr. Duncombe) should consider it his duty to proceed with his own Motion. He did not feel disposed to give way to the purpose of affording the bigots of the House an opportunity of inflicting pain on his Roman Catholic friends, and insulting Ireland. He did not see what was to be gained by a continuation of that discussion. If a Motion were made for repealing the grant to Maynooth, and all other grants by the State for religious purposes,
1162
he should give to it his best support; but he would not vote for any proposal of a less general character. The mind of the country was already made up upon the subject of the Maynooth grant; and the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire had no doubt already made up his mind with respect to it. The hon. Member would repeal the grant to Maynooth. [Mr. SPOONER intimated assent.] Then why did not the hon. Member at once propose that? His hon. Friend the Member for Youghal (Mr. Anstey) had given notice of a Motion for the repeal of all grants by the State for religious purposes; and if hon. Gentlemen opposite wished to see the Maynooth grant abolished, they had only to support that Motion.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, that for his part he was prepared to concur in the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to proceed at once to a division on the main question then under their consideration; but as several Roman Catholic Members wished to have an opportunity of addressing the House on the subject, he did not see how they could well adopt the suggestion. In the present state of the Session it was very desirable that they should not take into consideration any measures that were not really practicable; and if such measures were brought forward by independent Members of the House, there would be no use in attempting to reproach Ministers for not immediately proceeding to a dissolution. With great respect for his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth (Mr. D'Eyncourt), he would suggest that his Motion for leave to bring in a Bill to shorten the duration of Parliaments, which stood on the paper for that evening, was, for the present, at least, one of an impracticable character. It was, in fact, one of those great measures of reform which could only be properly considered by a new Parliament. But the Motion of which he (Lord R. Grosvenor) had given notice for that evening—for the repeal of the attorneys' certificate duty—was one of a very different description. It had already received the support of a large majority of that House; and every hon. Member was aware that the discussions upon it had never occupied more than an hour or an hour and a half. He would, therefore, venture to propose that that Motion should be taken first after the reassembling of the House that evening; and after that they might pro-

1163
ceed with the adjourned debate. [Mr. T. DUNCOMBE: No; then with my Motion.] The only alternative he could propose was that the Government should allow him to bring on his Motion as the first one on Thursday, or on Friday next. Upon that understanding he would be perfectly ready to postpone his Motion that evening.
The O'GORMAN MAHONsaid, after the marked allusion which had been made to him by the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Reynolds), he trusted the House would indulge him for a few moments. The other night, on a Motion of adjournment, the hon. Member went into a variety of subjects having no relation whatever to the discussion before the House. The course pursued by the hon. Member excited a good deal of indignation; and he suggested to the hon. Member in the most friendly spirit that it would be better for his own sake to return to the question. Upon that appeal, which was made in the best spirit imaginable, he was met by such deportment and language as was not usual when friendly communications were meant. It was then that he was under the necessity of standing up and giving to the House what he conceived to be the very reverse of an accurate description of the course pursued by the hon. Gentleman. He suggested that the hon. Member had displayed elegance, amiability, and language of the most exquisite taste. It had been said with respect to the originator of the Motion now before the House that he had pursued a certain course from a feeling antagonistic to the Roman Catholic religion; and in the absence of the hon. Member he had thought it only fair to state that on former occasions the hon. Member had rendered essential service to the Roman Catholic cause. He now repeated that assertion. He stated that when the hon. Member for Dublin was nowhere, and far removed from any connexion with the Roman Catholic body, he (The O'Gorman Mahon) and other Roman Catholic gentlemen in this country received essential benefit from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Spooner). He never stated that the hon. Gentleman had voted on the subject, because the hon. Gentleman was not in the House at the time; but it was notorious that outside the House he agitated for the advancement of the great Catholic question, and there Was no inconsistency in his pursuing the course he had since done. That was what he (The O'Gorman Mahon) had stated, and would not retract. He had been asked
1164
by the hon. Member for Dublin to retract his observations, and should retract one portion of them with great pleasure. He promised the hon. Member impunity whenever he should presume to address him as he did on that occasion, but he now retracted that promise. He also attributed to the hon. Gentleman a course of gentlemanly deportment, a manly and elegant phraseology, and a charming tout ensemble, with which the hon. Member now found fault in such a manner as to show himself a maitre de langues. The hon. Member called upon him to withdraw that gentlemanly description of his conduct, and he did withdraw it most heartily and willingly.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, the idea of adjourning this question till after the notices of Motion were disposed of, was a mere mockery; and therefore, as an Amendment, he would move that it be adjourned till half-past six o'clock, then to come on before the notices of Motion.
MR. SPEAKERstated that the proposition now made by the hon. and learned Gentleman was not consistent with the rule3 of the House, which had already ordered that notices of Motion should have precedence. The Motion that this debate be adjourned till after the Orders of the Day was correct; but the notices of Motion and Orders of the Day could be postponed if the House and those who had charge of them should agree to such an arrangement, and the adjourned debate could then be resumed.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, as it was clear his Motion was irregular, he should propose another. The hon. Member for Lambeth would not give way; and it was probable that Her Majesty's Ministers would not accede to the condition on which alone the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex offered to give way—namely, that a day should be fixed during the present week for the discussion of his Motion. Probably they would refuse the same indulgence to the hon. Member for Finsbury; and, therefore, the noble Lord and the hon. Gentlemen who had notices of Motion would persist in bringing them on. Under these circumstances, and being anxious that the House should proceed to a division as soon as possible, he would have rather done so at once; but that course was objected to by several Gentlemen who had not addressed the House. He should move that the debate be resumed to-morrow.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "after the Orders of the Day this

1165
Day "in order to add the words" To-morrow "instead thereof.
MR. REYNOLDSobserved that it would he futile to adjourn the debate to any future day, unless an hour was specially fixed for its resumption. He begged to be allowed to offer a few remarks with reference to certain observations that had fallen from the hon. Member for Ennis. [Loud cries of "No, no!"] He wished it to be distinctly understood that he was not aware that that hon. Gentleman had undertaken to lecture him. ["Oh, oh!" "Question!"] He threw himself on the indulgence of the House, and hoped they would permit him to say a few words by way of explanation. He was not aware that the hon. Member had undertaken to lecture him. He had, indeed, heard the hon. Member interrupt him in a manner which he (Mr. Reynolds) would not designate, because it would be disorderly to do so; but as to the hon. Gentleman's talk about granting or refusing him impunity, he begged the hon. Gentleman to understand that he wanted no impunity from him. He (Mr. Reynolds) would ever claim the right of expressing his feelings and opinions in an orderly manner in that House, and that right he was determined to exercise, notwithstanding the heroic and military aspect of the hon. Gentleman; and notwithstanding that the hon. Gentleman might invite him (an invitation which he would probably decline) to accept a return ticket to Weybridge. In conclusion, he would only say that if the hon. Gentleman could give no better proof of his zeal in defence of the cause which he had been sent there to protect, than by pursuing a course of conduct which might, in plain English, be interpreted into an attempt to "bully," he would render no very valuable service to his constituents. At all events, he would tell the hon. Gentleman that he had mistaken him (Mr. Reynolds) if he supposed that he was to be terrified by any such behaviour on the part of the hon. Gentleman.
The O'GORMAN MAHONrose, and was about to address the House; but Mr. Speaker deciding against him, the hon. Member resumed his seat.
MR. TENNYSON D'EYNOOURTsaid, that he had already stated that he did not think he ought to be called upon to give way on the reassembling of the House, but he had added that he would be prepared to yield to a general wish on the part of hon. Members. It appeared, however, that his noble Friend the Member for
1166
Middlesex meant in any case to proceed with his Motion; so that there could be no advantage gained by his (Mr. D'Eyn-court's) not going on with the one which stood in his name.
MR. KEOGHsaid, it must be within the knowledge of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire that before putting his Motion on the books of the House, he had the consent and concurrence of at least one right hon. Gentleman opposite. In the progress of the debate another right hon. Gentleman gave the Motion his concurrence; and this day the House had heard from the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland, that he considered it the duty of the Government to advance the inquiry by every means in their power. He (Mr. Keogh) believed he was right in saying, that to all intents and purposes this was a Government question. If the Motion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire were so supported, if the Attorney General for Ireland declared at this period of the Session, knowing the probable duration of the Session, that he considered it the imperative duty of the Government to forward an inquiry, why should there be any hesitation on the part of the Government in naming a day when the matter could be proceeded with? If it were of that all-absorbing importance which was alleged, if the country from one end to the other were agitated and anxious for a decision, and the inquiry received the support of the Government, and they considered it their bounden duty to advance it, why should not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had adopted the question and made it a Government measure, propose a fitting day for its discussion, without calling on hon. Members upon this side of the House to abandon their Motions in order to further a conclusion in which they did not concur? If Ministers wished to act in a straightforward manner, and not, as on many other questions, to play fast and loose, they ought to give way.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERbegged to remind the House that it was entirely through his suggestion that the debate had taken place that day. It was he who had proposed that Tuesday morning should be set aside for that purpose; but he had explained that, for reasons which he believed were satisfactory to the whole House, it would be quite impossible for the Government to allocate any of the few days now remaining of the Session to any debate not connected with the most pressing necessities of public busi-

1167
ness. For his own part, he should wish the debate to be pursued that afternoon, provided they should then come to a division; but there appeared to he a determination on the part of hon. Gentleman opposite not to divide. Hon. Members must decide the matter for themselves. His suggestion was, that the House should proceed to divide at once on the main question; but if they would not do so, he could not, on the part of the Government, offer them any assistance by setting aside another day for the resumption of the discussion.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYstated that he represented that constituency in Ireland which was most interested in a continuance of the grant to Maynooth, and he should not wish the debate to conclude without having an opportunity of expressing his views in regard to the proposed inquiry. He concurred with the hon. Member for Finsbury in thinking that no useful or charitable object could be attained either by the proposed inquiry, or by a continuance of the debate upon it, unless, indeed, it were thought a useful purpose to kindle sectarian strife and religious rancour. But if an inquiry were to take place, he and other Catholic Members would desire to have a most full and ample discussion. But neither he, nor they, nor the Catholic people of Ireland, had any wish whatever to increase those feelings of religious animosity which had already been created between the inhabitants of the three kingdoms; and, therefore, whilst he challenged and defied all inquiry into the system of education pursued at Maynooth, he did not invite it, but, on the contrary, would regard it as an unnecessary and uncalled-for insult. His own sentiments in respect to the inquiry had been already expressed in very emphatic terms by the present Premier, then Lord Stanley, in a speech delivered by him in the year 1845, when he strenuously opposed a similar Motion for an inquiry, made in the House of Lords, as an Amendment to the Bill of Sir Robert Peel, for an increase of the grant. With the permission of the House, he would read a passage from that remarkable speech:—
"If the inquiry was useless, it would not be merely useless. If they entered upon that inquiry —if, in prosecuting it, they called before them the various officers of the college, and the evidence which the noble Lords who proposed an inquiry were prepared to produce, for the purpose of proving that this or that objectionable passage was to be found in the text books used at Maynooth;, or that this or that doctrine was there in-
1168
culcated, the only result of such inquiry would be an incessant, constant, and daily-increasing acerbity, and an exaggeration of all the religious rancour and animosity which remained between different portions of the community. No one asserted that he knew or believed that Maynooth did not uphold the doctrine of allegiance to the Crown."
These were his own sentiments in regard to the sham inquiry now proposed; and it appeared to him difficult to account for Lord Derby's recent declarations, that he had "no present intentions" in regard to the grant to Maynooth, and that he regarded the continuance of that grant as "a question of pure policy, as to which the Government should be free to act, without reference to any abstract principle of right or wrong." As the House was impatient to come to a division, he should not detain it any longer at present, hoping he would have the opportunity of expressing his views more fully on a future occasion.
SIR ARCHIBALD CAMPBELLsuggested that the debate might be resumed on Thursday or Friday.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: —Ayes 278; Noes 58: Majority 220.

List of the AYES.

Adair, R. A. S.

Burghley, Lord

Adderley, C. B.

Burroughes, H. N.

Alcock, T.

Butt, I.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Buxton, Sir E. N.

Arkwright, G.

Carew, W. H. P.

Bagot, hon. W.

Cavendish, hon. C. O.

Bailey, C.

Cavendish, W. G.

Bailey, J.

Chaplin, W. J.

Baillie, H. J.

Child, S.

Baird, J.

Cholmeley, Sir M.

Baldock, E. H.

Christopher, rt. hn. R. A.

Bankes, rt. hon. G.

Christy, S.

Barrington, Visct.

Clay, J.

Beckett, W.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Benbow, J.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Bennet, P.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Bentinck, Lord H.

Clive, H. B.

Beresford, rt. hon. W.

Cobbold, J. C.

Berkeley, C. L. G.

Cocks, T. S.

Bernal, R.

Cogan, W. H. F.

Best, J.

Coles, H. B.

Blair, S.

Collins, T.

Booker, T. W.

Colvile, C. R.

Booth, Sir R. G.

Conolly, T.

Bowles, Adm.

Copeland, Ald.

Bramston, T. W.

Corry, rt. hon. H. L.

Bremridge, R.

Cotton, hon. W. H. S.

Bridges, Sir B. W.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Brisco, M.

Cubitt, Ald.

Brockman, E. D.

Darner, hon. Col.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Dashwood, Sir G. H.

Brotherton, J.

Davie, Sir H. R. F.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Davies, D. A. S.

Buck, L. W.

Dawes, E.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Bunbury, E. H.

Deedes, W.

1169

Dick, Q.

Hope, Sir J.

Disraeli, rt. hon. B.

Hope, H. T.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Hotham, Lord

Douro, Marq. of

Howard, Sir R.

Drummond, H. H.

Hudson, G.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Hume, J.

Duncan, G.

Hutt, W.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.

Jackson, W.

Du Pre, C. G.

Johnstone, Sir J.

East, Sir J. B.

Johnstone, J.

Edwards, H.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Egerton, Sir P.

Jones, Capt.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Kerrison, Sir E.

Emlyn, Visct.

Kershaw, J.

Euston, Earl of

Kildare, Marq. of

Evans, W.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Evelyn, W. J.

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Ewart, W.

Knox, hon. W. S.

Farnham, E. B.

Lacy, H. C.

Farrer, J.

Langton, W. G.

Fellowes, E.

Laslett, W.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Legh, G. C.

Filmer, Sir E.

Lewisham, Visct.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Locke, J.

Floyer, J.

Lockhart, A. E.

Forbes, W.

Lockhart, W.

Fordyce, A. D.

Long, W.

Forester, rt. hon. Col.

Lopez, Sir R.

Forster, M.

M'Taggart, Sir J.

Fox, S. W. L.

Mahon, Visct.

Freestun, Col.

Mangles, R. D.

Freshfield, J. W.

Masterman, J.

Frewen, C. H.

Maunsell, T. P.

Fuller, A. E.

Melgund, Visct.

Gallwey, Sir W. P.

Meux, Sir H.

Galway, Visct.

Miles, P. W. S.

Gaskell, J. M.

Miles, W.

Gilpin, Col.

Milligan, R.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Milnes, R. M.

Glyn, G. C.

Milton, Visct.

Gooch, Sir E. S.

Mitchell, T. A.

Gore, W. O.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Moody, C. A.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Morgan, O.

Granby, Marq. of

Morris, D.

Greenall, G.

Mowatt, F.

Greene, T.

Mullings, J. R.

Grogan, E.

Mundy, W.

Grosvenor, Earl

Naas, Lord

Gwyn, H.

Napier, rt. hon. J.

Hale, R. B.

Neeld, J.

Halford, Sir H.

Neeld, J.

Hallewell, E. G.

Newdegate, C. N.

Halsey, T. P.

Noel, hon. G. J.

Hamilton, G. A.

Ossulston, Lord

Hamilton, Lord C.

Packe, C. W.

Hardcastle, J. A.

Pakington, rt. hon. Sir J.

Hardinge, hon. C. S.

Palmer, R.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Palmerston, Visct.

Harris, R.

Patten, J. W.

Hatchell, rt. hon. J.

Pennant, hon. Col.

Hayes, Sir E.

Pigot, F.

Headlam, T. E.

Pinney, W.

Heathcote, Sir G. J.

Portal, M.

Heneage, E.

Powlett, Lord W.

Henley, rt. hon. J. W.

Prime, R.

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

Pusey, P.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Renton, J. C.

Heywood J.

Repton, G. W. J.

Hildyard, R. C.

Rice, E. R.

Hindley, C.

Richards, R.

Hodges, T. L.

Romilly, Sir J.

Hodgson, W. N.

Rushout, Capt.

1170

Salwey, Col.

Tyler, Sir G.

Sandars, G.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Sandars, J.

Vane, Lord H.

Scobell, Capt.

Verner, Sir W.

Scott, hon. F.

Villiers, Visct.

Seaham, Visct.

Vivian, J. E.

Seymour, Lord

Vivian, J. H.

Sibthorp, Col.

Vyse, R. H. R. H.

Sidney, Ald.

Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Smollett, A.

Walter, J.

Spearman, H. J.

Watkins, Col. L.

Spooner, R.

Welby, G. E.

Stafford, A.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Stanford, J. F.

West, F. R.

Stanley, E.

Whiteside, J.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Whitmore, T. C.

Stewart, Adm.

Wigram, L. T.

Stuart, Lord D.

Williams, T. P.

Stuart, Lord J.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Stuart, H.

Wilson, J.

Stuart, J.

Wood, Sir W. P.

Sturt, H. G.

Worcester, Marq. of

Sutton, J. H. M.

Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.

Tennent, R. J.

Wrightson, W. B.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Wynn, H. W. W.

Thompson, Col.

Wyvill, M.

Thornely, T.

Tollemache, hon. F. J.

TELLERS.

Tollemache, J.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Trollope, rt. hon. Sir J.

Bateson, T.

List of the NOES.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Martin, J.

Barron, Sir H. W.

Murphy, F. S.

Bell, J.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Nugent, Sir P.

Brown, H.

O'Flaherty, A.

Bruce, Lord E.

Oswald, A.

Campbell, Sir A. I.

Pechell, Sir G. B.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Philips, Sir G. R.

Clay, Sir W.

Pilkington, J.

Currie, R.

Reynolds, J.

D'Eyncourt. rt. hon. C. T.

Robartes, T. J. A.

Duff, J.

Seholefield, W.

Duncan, Visct.

Scully, F.

Duncombe, T.

Scully, V.

Ellice, E.

Seymour, H. D.

Fortescue, C.

Smith, J. A.

Fox, R. M.

Smythe, hon. G.

Goold, W.

Somers, J. P.

Greene, J.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Sullivan, M.

Hastie, A.

Tenison, E. K.

Heard, J. I.

Wakley, T.

Heyworth, L.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Hope, A.

Westhead, J. P. B.

Horsman, E.

Willcox, B. M.

Howard, P. H.

Williams, J.

Hutchins, E. J.

Williams, W.

Keating, R.

Keogh, W.

TELLERS.

M'Gregor, J.

Anstey, T. C.

Meagher, T.

The O'Gorman Mahon

Main Question put, and agreed to; Debate further adjourned till after the Orders of the Day, this day.

ADJOURNMENT—THE DERBY DAY.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, there were proposals sometimes made to the

1171
House which the longest speeches were insufficient to make the House comprehend; while, on the other hand, there were now and then Motions capable of being comprehended by the House without any speeches at all. The Motion which he was about to make was of the latter description. It was obvious to everybody, from circumstances which it was not his intention to go into, that they were very unlikely to have at to-morrow morning's sitting a sufficient attendance for getting through any public business, unless they had a call of the House; he had therefore to choose between the alternative of moving a call of the House, or of moving that the House should, at its rising, adjourn to Thursday next. If he were to ask hon. Members to agree to a call of the House for to-morrow, he would have no chance of carrying such a Motion; but he did hope that he should be more fortunate if he ventured to move that the House, at its rising that evening, should adjourn till Thursday next.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will, at the rising of the House this day, adjourn till Thursday next."
MR. SHARMAN CRAWFORDfelt himself under the necessity of opposing the Motion. There was a very important subject on the Orders for to-morrow.
The Question having been put,
MR. ANSTEYsaid, that, in order that the House might have an opportunity of deciding between duty to Maynooth and the pleasures of the Derby, he should move that this debate also be adjourned till after the other Orders of the Day this day.
The O'GORMAN MAHONsaid, it was quite obvious that, unless the House consented to the proposition made in the early part of the evening, they would be occupied uselessly for the whole of the night, as it was the determination of Irish Members that this debate should be fairly gone through. If it were attempted to throw them over; it would only increase the irritation that at present existed on the subject both in and out of doors.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
The House divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 212: Majority 169.
Main Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 190; Noes 47: Majority 143.
CAPTAIN FITZROYsaid, after the long time the Speaker had occupied the chair that day, he thought they were bound to
1172
consult his comfort and convenience to some extent, and begged to move that the House do now adjourn till Thursday next.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYdid not rise to oppose the Motion, nor should he have opposed it now, but he wished that note should be taken of the fact, that if they agreed to that Motion, the Order for resuming the adjourned debate on Maynooth would become a dropped order, and the debate could not be resumed during the present Session. That was what the party opposite wished; and it was clear that the Derby element prevailed over the Protestant interest. It would deprive them of the opportunity of resuming the debate, which, out of consideration to the Chair, they proposed not to resume that night,
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the hon. Member would have it go forth that, because hon. Members wanted to go to the Derby, therefore they did not wish the debate to be resumed. He appealed to the experience of hon. Members whether the custom had not been for many years that the House had adjourned over the Derby day, because it was found that jobs were perpetrated on that day. Now, he accused the hon. and learned Member for Youghal of endeavouring to bring on the adjourned debate on Maynooth on the Derby day for the purpose of quashing it, because he counted upon there being then a thin attendance.
Motion made, and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."
The House divided;—Ayes 89; Noes 128: Majority 39.
Mr. Speaker then left the Chair until eight o'clock.
House resumed at Eight o'clock.
Notice taken, that Forty Members were not present; House counted; and Forty Members not being present,
The House was adjourned at Eight o'clock till Thursday.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1ª Corrupt Practices at Elections; Differential Dues; Metropolitan Building Act Further Amendment.
2ª Enfranchisement of Copyholds; School Sites Acts Extension; Property of Lunatics; Stamp Duties (Ireland); Apprehension of Deserters from Foreign Ships; Turnpike Roads (Ireland).
Reported. —Property Tax Continuance.

THE MILITIA BILL QUESTION.
The MARQUESS of BREADALBANEunderstood from the Votes and Proceedings of the other House that the Militia Bill was soon likely to come before their Lordships. He wished to know from Her Majesty's Government whether they would be prepared to assist the House of Lords in their deliberations on this measure with the opinions of military and naval men? This was a question which, more than others, required such knowledge or such aid. The subject was the defences of the country, and the best means of improving them. Now, who could so well advise upon such matters as a man whose profession made him of necessity acquainted with them? How could a layman be expected to form a judgment upon them more than as to how to attack or to defend a citadel. He wanted to know whether the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) would furnish the House with some professional data upon this most important question? The question he put to the Government was, whether they had taken the opinion of military and naval men on the subject of our national defences—and especially of the noble and gallant Duke the Comman-
1098
der of the Forces, than whom no one was better qualified to give an opinion on the subject; and, if so, whether they would lay those reports or opinions before the House?
The EARL of DERBYreplied, that it was the intention of the Government to proceed with the Militia Bill as quickly as possible. The Government had duly considered the whole of the case, and had consulted many authorities, especially the noble and gallant Duke at the head of Her Majesty's Forces. It was the intention of the Government to proceed with the Militia Bill at once; it was one of those questions which the Government deemed urgent, and wished to have passed during the present Session.
The MARQUESS of BREADALBANEasked if the noble Earl had any objection to lay before the House military and naval reports founded upon investigation of the subject? It appeared to him that this was strictly a professional and technical question, and that the legislation of the House ought to be founded upon these reports.
The EARL of DERBY: I am not prepared to lay before the House any communications which Her Majesty's Government have received confidentially, respecting the military and naval defences of the country.

ENFRANCHISEMENT OF COPYHOLDS.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CRANWORTHrose for the purpose of asking their Lordships to agree to the Second Reading of a Bill which had come up to them from the other House of Parliament, the object of which was further to extend the existing provisions for the Enfranchisement of Copyhold lands. He should not enter into any discussion with respect to the origin or nature of copyhold tenure —it was a subject which had puzzled antiquaries, and might well be left to their researches, while their Lordships applied themselves to the practical grievances to be remedied. He should, therefore, content himself with shortly calling the attention of the House to the evils arising from the present state of the law relative to copyholds, and to what had been done from time to time for the purpose of obviating or palliating those evils; and he would then briefly state the nature of this Bill, which had received the very general concurrence of all parties in the other House

1099
of Parliament. The grievances arising out of copyhold tenure, were not matter of recent complaint. The attention of the Real Property Commission, which was issued under the Great Seal, he believed during the time it was held by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Lyndhurst), hut certainly during the latter part of the reign of George IV., was directed to this amongst other subjects; and in a very elaborate Report (he believed their third) which they made in 1832, they carefully pointed out and enumerated the evils existing in this part of our legal system. The general outline of those evils must be familiar to all their Lordships; but it might not be altogether without its use shortly to recapitulate some of the most prominent. Copyholds were a remnant, the last fragment in fact, of the laws of tenure that at one time prevailed nearly universally throughout this country. There was formerly the tenure by chivalry, by which the great lords held their estates; the tenure by free and common socage which now prevailed almost universally under the name of freehold; and the copyhold tenure—besides some other tenures to which it was necessary for him then to refer. One of the first Acts of the Parliament, after the restoration of King Charles II., was formally to abolish the tenure by chivalry, which had been practically abolished during the Commonwealth, and to reduce everything, with the exception of the copyhold lands, to free and common socage, &c.—to what is commonly called freehold. It was a very old observation made by a very acute writer, the author of the amusing Life of Chancellor Guildford, that it was somewhat unequal that when the great Lords abolished the tenures which pressed upon themselves, and substituted for them an excise upon the liquors consumed by the people, they left the minor tenures untouched and open to the same abuses which existed formerly. The consequences of these tenures were apparent, in the first place, in the payment of fines, rents, reliefs, and so forth, and in a number of services and dues that were payable by the tenants from time to time, and were calculated to inflict upon them very serious practical grievances. To two or three of the most prominent of those grievances, he would now direct their attention. In the first place, there was that strangest of anomalies that passed under the name of heriot. This was a custom which existed in very many manors, though it was
1100
not universal, and was not even confined to lands held by copyhold tenure. By it, on the death of a person holding land subject to the custom, the lord might seize the best chattel of which the tenant died possessed; in some manors the best live chattel; but in others there was no such restriction; in some cases it must be seized on the land, but in others it might be seized anywhere. Now, if that were stated to be a law existing in Madagascar, would they believe that such a thing could possibly exist where any law prevailed at all? He did not mean to say that practically it was any great grievance; for the feelings of men were such that no one who seriously attempted to enforce such a right would get any concurrence, and the lords were therefore frequently obliged to waive the right. Such, however, was the state of the law, and it was a blot on our judicial system that it should be so. Indeed, instances had occurred, in very modern times, in which this law had been enforced with very grievous practical hardship. He remembered that when he was a young man, the famous horse Smolensko, worth 2,000 l. or 3,000 l., was seized on the death of the late Sir Charles Bunbury; and a similar case occurred on the death of the late Sir Gilbert Heathcote. About thirty years ago, when the late Lord Abinger, then Mr. Scarlett, was on circuit, a rumour of his death was spread; and the first intimation that Mrs. Scarlett received of the supposed melancholy event (though the report turned out to he a mere invention), was, that the agent of the lord of the manor seized three of Mr. Scarlett's horses. Since he entered the House that evening, he had been told, and he believed it was true, that the Pitt diamond was at one time pledged to a pawnbroker who had a small copyhold tenement in Westmoreland, liable to heriot, and on his death the lord of that copyhold manor either did seize or intimated to the parties, that he had a right to seize this diamond; but he (Lord Cranworth) believed that he was a man of too much probity of feeling to do so, and gave up that to which he had perhaps a right. Another curious illustration of the absurdity of this law was exhibited in what had occurred to the late Sir Robert Peel; who, being the tenant of a manor to which heriot attached, was in the greatest apprehension that if anything happened to him, his celebrated picture, the Cha-peau de Paille, might be seized; and in order to free himself from that risk, he

1101
bought the manor of which the copyhold was held. Now if that was, as he believed, true, was it not a state of the law that was startling from its absurdity? He did not, however, put forth these hardships as the greatest practical grievances which flowed from this source—they arose from something of a much more commonplace kind. The ordinary copyhold tenure required that upon every death or alienation of a tenant, his successor should pay to the lord a fine which, in some cases, was called "arbitrary," which practically meant one year or two years' value of the land; while in other cases it was a fine of a shilling or five shillings, or some other sum of no real importance. It was stated by a gentleman who gave evidence before a Committee of the other House of Parliament which sat in the last Session, upon the Bill which was then before their Lordships, that in about two-thirds of the manors of England a fine arbitrary prevailed. What was the consequence? Let their Lordships reason upon it â priori. If the tenant laid out money in improving his land, should he derive the benefit of all he so laid out? Certainly not; for at his death his heir would have to pay to the lord two years' improved value. Mr. Blamire, a gentleman eminent in all agricultural matters, formerly in Parliament, who was many years at the head of the Tithe Commission, and who was also a Drainage Commissioner, and was therefore well competent to speak upon this subject, was examined before that Committee, and he then stated that the Drainage Commissioners never had an application to drain copyhold lands; persons would not do it. The very name of copyhold was repulsive to them. Every one who wished to drain wished to drain something of which he would have the entire and complete control. Mr. Blamire's experience was that the profit derived from laying out money upon drainage was from 12 to 20 per cent; the tenant then—and the country at large—were thus deprived of an immense annual advantage by the operation of this tenure. But the evil was not limited to the non-drainage of copyhold lands merely; copyhold land was not generally to be found in separate estates, but was usually mixed up with freehold land; and the practical result was, that the tenant occupying such estates, rather than drain the copyhold portion, abstained from draining at all. But draining was not the only important improvement
1102
that was checked by this system of tenure —building was prevented, and he believed by the general law of copyholds no man had a right to build at all, still less to pull down buildings on his land; and the effect of this prohibition was as widely mischievous as the regulation with regard to drainage. As an example of the effect that would be produced by the enfranchisement of copyhold, he might refer to a piece of ground near the Crystal Palace. It was copyhold held under the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, and was let for only 30 l. a year, while the land around it being free-hold was covered with buildings at most remunerative rents; at length, by an arrangement between the landlord and tenant, this land was enfranchised; it was immediately sold at 150 years' purchase, and was now, like the contiguous land, covered with houses at corresponding rents. These were among the leading evils of the system; and there were innumerable others; but if there were none besides the mystery and uncertainty attending the transfer of copyhold lands, occasioned by these complicated varieties of tenure, there would be quite sufficient reason for correcting the evil. He was not one of those who were so sanguine as to imagine that the transfer of land might be made as simple a matter as the transfer of stock; but there was no question that the transfer might be infinitely simplified, and he was very anxious that Parliament should not delay to take every practicable step in that direction. The special customs which existed in so great a number of copyhold estates, were in themselves a most serious impediment to this very desirable object. Nobody knew but that at the very moment, after infinite trouhle and expense, he was on the point of completing the purchase of an estate supposed to be ordinary copyhold, some special custom might start up, wholly altering the case so far as he was concerned. For example, he knew of one case in which a gentleman, having all but completed the purchase of an estate, which he had been assured, and which all the previous evidence went to show, was under ordinary copyhold tenure, was informed at the last moment that the tenure was borough English—that was to say, went in a course of descent to the younger and not to the elder son-—and, in consequence, all the trouble and all the expense that had been so far incurred were thrown away. Another vexation of the system was the requirement imposed upon the tenant of keeping the boundaries

1103
distinct between his intermixed copyhold and freehold lands—a requirement very difficult to be observed, but which left an opening for considerable vexation. One evil which had formerly existed with reference to copyhold lands, the difference required to be observed in testamentary dispositions as between them and freeholds, had been obviated by the Wills Act. Originally the laws applying to wills relating to copyholds were special, and distinct from those referring to freeholds. In 1837 the Wills Amendment Act altered this, and did away with the distinction. In 1838 the noble Lord (Lord Campbell), being then Attorney General, and he (Lord Cranworth) Solicitor General, three measures were introduced into the House of Commons. The first Bill contemplated the gradual enfranchisement of copyholds; the second referred to the fixing of copyhold boundaries; the third dealt with some details which he did not recollect. Those three measures were sent to a Select Committee, on the Motion of Sir Robert Peel. The proposal of the Committee, after taking evidence, was, that the enfranchisement and commutation should be placed under the direction of the Tithe Commissioners, who were supposed to be well fitted for such a management, as already dealing with germane affairs; and that, as in regard to the commutation of tithes, the enfranchisements should not be compulsory, but should be left to voluntary arrangement between the interested parties themselves. Legislation, however, was delayed until 1841, and then an Act (the 4 & 5 Vict.) was passed, providing facilities for enfranchisement in this manner—that it gave to those who were called "incompetent" persons, and who without that Act would have been helpless, power to obtain enfranchisement of their copyholds. It was further provided that even without absolute enfranchisement, the chief burdens of copyholds, such as fines, heriots, &c, might be commuted and turned into a rentcharge whenever the lord concurred with three-fourths of the tenants. But during the whole period since the passing of that Act, there had been only two instances of such a commutation—from whence he (Lord Cranworth) inferred that everybody wished to be a freeholder rather than a copyholder, even although they might get rid of the principal burdens attached to copyhold tenure by the commutation. Enfranchisement had gone on more rapidly, but not very rapidly; and it was the opinion of the Commissioners that it could not
1104
proceed rapidly until there was some more compulsory measure; and there had been only 400 cases altogether under the former Act. But this took place, that there never was a Session but in one House or the other there were discussions on the subject —discussions which showed that, sooner or later, the enfranchisement of copyholds must inevitably take place. Bills had been introduced by parties unconnected with any Government; but in 1848 Lord Cotten-ham brought in a Bill which was read a second time; but beyond that he (Lord Cranworth) could not trace it In the last Session two Bills were brought into the other House by two hon. Members, and were referred to a Select Committee. The Committee having gone through the Bills with great care and attention, had recommended a compromise, or an amalgamation of the two measures; and the Bill before the House was the result of that compromise. If their Lordships now read the Bill a second time, he should ask for a Committee pro forma to make some amendments, there being some inaccuracies in the language, which he wished to put in a more perfect form. The Bill had been considered by the Government in the other House, who had recommended certain alterations, and it now came to their Lordships for a second reading. He (Lord Cranworth) thought that no measure would be perfect which did not, on the same principle as the Tithe Commutation Act, embrace the question of a general commutation; but, as had been recommended by Sir Robert Peel, he thought it would be better to attain that object by steps. The present Bill referred to the facilities for enfranchisement given by the Act of 1841, to parties willing to adopt it; and its object was to enable, under certain modifications, either the lord to compel the tenant to enfranchise, or the tenant to compel the lord. This might operate hardly on a poor copyholder who did not want to be disturbed. The present Bill dealt fairly with that case; and would not allow either the lord or the tenant to claim enfranchisement, until the necessity for admittance arose either by alienation or death. The enfranchisement might be effected either for a rentcharge, or for a gross sum of money. If the demand for enfranchisement was caused by alienation, the party would be saddled with a rentcharge, or an extra sum beyond the fine, which would be no grievance to the purchaser, who would buy subject to that. In the case of aliena-

1105
tion by death, the person to whom the estate descended would take it—not as a copyhold, but as a freehold, subject either to a rentcharge, to be assessed, or an annual rent. There would be no hardship on the lord, because, either at the death of a tenant, or the alienation of the estate, he was entitled to a fine, for which he would now receive an equivalent, either in a gross sum or an annual sum to be assessed. It seemed to him that this Bill was a fair compromise, and that, at least it would be better than to allow the present disgraceful state of the law which now existed to continue; and he therefore moved their Lordships to give a second reading to the Bill.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2ª."
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that no doubt many evils had sprung from the tenure of copyhold, and his noble and learned Friend had stated them with his usual power, and had shown that it would be desirable to enfranchise copyholds generally, if it were possible to do so without trespassing too much on the rights of property. He had particularly alluded to the evils arising from heriots, which he (the Lord Chancellor) could speak of from personal experience; for he had some copyhold property, and not choosing to put his family to the inconvenience of having their horses or their "best chattel" seized by the lord at his death, he had caused the copyhold to be taken in the name of a trustee, to prevent the lord making that claim. He was, therefore, perfectly sensible of the inconveniences of the system, and no one would be more ready than he should to support any Bill which should remedy it. He thought, however, that his noble and learned Friend had rather exaggerated some of the evils of the present law, and overrated the good that would be effected by this measure. He agreed with his noble and learned Friend, that in point of law copyhold land could not be built upon, for that was considered as waste, nor could houses that had been erected upon it be pulled down. There were many localities in which great advantage had arisen in preventing them being covered too speedily with a dense mass of buildings. Reference had been made to Islington; but if a foreigner wished to know whether this institution were fit for Madagascar or for England, and he was taken over that portion of London, he would be astonished if he were told that this tenure had produced such consequences that a
1106
complete stop had been put to buildings in the heart of the metropolis. The lord had as good a right to the freehold as the tenant to the copyhold; and nothing but clear motives of public interest could justify the Legislature in interfering with the rights of the lords and the tenants. His noble Friend had put the question on too high a ground, by saying it ought to be placed on the same footing as tithes, which required to be dealt with by the Legislature in relation to the Empire at large. There was no such necessity as regarded copyholds. He agreed that any measure would be most desirable that would lead to the enfranchisement of copyholds; but it must be done without bearing hardly on the rights of parties. His noble and learned Friend had referred to the evils of the descent of copyhold property; but this Bill, as far as he understood it, did not in any way remedy those evils. He (the Lord Chancellor) denied that there was such a complication with regard to copyhold titles as had been stated by his noble Friend, and would assert that they were more simple than those relating to freeholds. He thought they were bound to protect the smaller tenants who preferred this species of tenure; which had the benefit of a registry which was local, accessible, and could not be overloaded, which was one of the evils attached to a general registry. This Bill would deprive the copyholders of that, while the expense attached to the tenure would be greatly increased. There need not be two deeds on every sale or transfer of estates which consisted of freehold and copyhold land. There were two documents; but that was no objection, for the tenant did not, generally speaking, pay more than he would pay if the estates were entirely freehold. As regarded he-riots and arbitrary fines, the abolition of them could not be too much facilitated; and any measure which would carry into effect more satisfactorily the law as it at present stood with regard to those subjects, would meet with his strongest support. Feeling as he did that the emancipation of copyholds, and the conversion of them into freeholds, would be a great public benefit, his objection to this Bill was, not that it would enfranchise copyholds, but that it was done in a compulsory, and that in a very disagreeable manner. It was said, that by this Bill there was no compulsory enfranchisement until admittance was necessary. But take a man with a small property—he would rather have

1107
a burden attending the enfranchisement fall on himself than upon his family after his death. Take the case, of which there were thousands in the country, of an ordinary copyhold farm at 10 l. a year. The man who held it was perfectly contented with his tenure. He wanted to do nothing with it which he could not do as well with a copyhold as with a freehold. If he was forced to enfranchise his copyhold, he would have to pay the lord's fine, the fine to the steward, and his share of the expenses of the enfranchisement. In many cases the expenses would be more than the value of the property, and then the man's widow would be houseless. Suppose the money to be paid were raised by way of mortgage, or suppose it paid by a rent charge. If it was paid by mortgage, the party was subject to foreclosure; and if it was by rentcharge, it would probably amount to more than the rent of the property; and the consideration in many cases would exceed its value as a freehold. If he (the Lord Chancellor) had to choose between a compulsory general enfranchisement that should take place, whether the landlord or the tenant wished for it or not, and this Bill, he would prefer the compulsory enfranchisement. This Bill put the lord and the tenant in a disagreeable position. They would each have to watch the other in order to compel one another to enfranchise, and they would take every advantage of each other. Now, at present, he believed that enfranchisement was going on much more rapidly than his noble and learned Friend supposed, without the assistance either of the Commissioners or of the Act of Parliament. In times of prosperity, when money was plentiful, it progressed of course much more rapidly than at other times; but by this Bill the poor copyholders might be forced to buy at a disadvantageous moment. The lord might be compelled to enfranchise his good tenants, and the small ones might refuse, and be left on his hands; and he would ultimately be compelled in self-defence to force the poor cottagers to enfranchise their copyholds. Those evils were inseparable from a measure of this sort, though they did not attach to a general compulsory measure. At present the lord had as much right to the property in mines as the tenant had to the surface of the soil, and this Bill did not provide any means to enable the lord to get at the mines after the enfranchisement of the copyhold. He had made these few observations, not as wishing to obstruct the passing of the measure,
1108
in order to point out the difficulties of this subject; and he doubted the propriety of passing such a stringent measure as this without an urgent necessity. He should not oppose the second reading of the Bill; but as he thought it ought to be well considered, he should recommend its being referred to a Select Committee, there to be considered, as it ought to be, clause by clause, in order that their Lordships might understand upon what they were legislating. He could not say that this Bill was one which could be safely passed at once. It might be said, that referring it to a Select Committee would be to send it over the present Session. He had no such object, and he did not see why that should be the result; but even if that should be the necessary consequence of sending it to a Select Committee, he would think that a much less evil than, by legislating hastily, to break in upon the rights of property, as he considered the Bill in its present shape was calculated to do,
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he had hoped that this Bill was of such a nature as to have obtained the cordial support of the Government; and that with the general concurrence of their Lordships it would have passed its second reading, and before the conclusion of the present Session have become the law of the land. But that hope had been dispelled by the speech which he had just heard from the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack. That speech was cheered by the noble Earl the Lord Privy Seal, and he feared was approved of by the rest of the Ministers. He had hoped that when the noble Earl on the cross-benches (the Earl of Elles-mere) withdrew his notice of Motion to send the Bill to a Select Committee, the second reading would have received the cordial support of the Government; but he was now afraid that they doomed it to destruction. This not only grieved but surprised him; because in the other House of Parliament this Bill was supported by Her Majesty's Government. The Home Secretary was not only a great statesman, but a great lawyer, and a consummate jurist; and if he (Lord Campbell) was not grossly misinformed, that right hon. Gentleman approved of the measure, although he considered it a compromise, and he undertook that it should receive the support of the Government. After that understanding, the Bill had now come before their Lordships' House, and the Lord Chancellor delivered a speech against it, in which he

1109
greatly mitigated all the evils arising out] of copyhold tenure, and impugned the principle of the Bill as well as its details. If the Bill was such as his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack had described it, the proper mode of proceeding would have been for his noble and learned Friend to have moved that it should be read a second time that day three months; his noble and learned Friend would have done much better if he had concluded his speech with such a Motion, rather than by proposing that it should be referred to a Select Committee. He was grieved that the Bill was likely to be defeated. He (Lord Campbell) imagined this Bill would have been one of the measures of reform which were to reflect credit on the present Government; he thought it might have been one of the topics on which they might have gone to the country. His noble and learned Friend on the woolsack had referred to the difficulties which stood in the way of the lord of a manor dealing with the minerals under a copyhold estate. To those difficulties he might have added others, which were incident to timber; for as the law at present stood the timber on land of copyhold tenure could he cut down neither by the lord nor by the tenant; and there was a saying in England that the oak was too noble a tree to grow on servile soil. Nor were those the only inconveniences arising out of copyhold tenure. In almost every manor there was a particular code of laws by which the copyholders of the manor were governed—for example, in almost every manor a particular rule of succession was adopted. In some it was the custom that the eldest son succeeded to the whole of the customary lands; in others the custom of gavelkind obtained, and then all the sons succeeded alike; in others, again, the custom of borough-English prevailed, and then the youngest son became the heir to the exclusion of the eldest. It had given him pleasure to hear from his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack a recognition of the value of the system of registration with respect to the deeds under which copyhold lands were holden: now this Bill did not propose to deprive the copyholder of that benefit; and he hoped before another year passed away that another claim which the Government would have to the gratitude of the country for the desire to pass useful measures of legal reform, would rest on the establishment of a general system of
1110
registration for deeds. According to the principles of the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, this tenure was to be perpetuated, for it was idle to suppose that it would be abolished before many generations or many centuries merely by voluntary enfranchisements. The noble and learned Lord complained that the Bill did not go far enough, and said he would rather prefer that there should be a compulsory power given at once to enfranchise copyholds in all the manors in England. He (Lord Campbell) should be glad to see that carried into effect; but he could understand cases of hardship arising from the carrying out of such a sweeping measure of compulsory enfranchisement which would make him recoil from its adoption. Perhaps the Bill now under consideration might in some instances result in hardship; but, as a general rule, he believed its operation would be beneficial both to the lord and to the tenant. His firm belief was, that by allowing the Bill to have a compulsory operation on the two occasions of death and alienation, no evil would accrue, and much benefit would arise. If the admission was in consequence of the death of the former tenant, the money for enfranchisement would easily be raised on mortgage; and in case of a sale, the effect of the enfranchisement would be to enhance the price. If, on a trial, the compulsory power given by the Bill was found ineffectual, then his noble and learned Friend might come down in a subsequent Session of Parliament, and propose a measure which might compel the lord and the tenant to enfranchise all the copyholds in England. But he (Lord Campbell) repeated his belief that the present Bill, which merely allowed compulsory enfranchisement on the occasions of death and alienation, would have a beneficial operation. The present was an opportunity of making a great step in the right direction — of making copyhold enfranchisement compulsory on the two occasions he had mentioned, which might he done with perfect safety and advantage; and if it should afterwards be found by his noble and learned Friend that there were copyhold tenures which it would be disadvantageous to retain, his noble and learned Friend might then come to that House with a sweeping measure for their abolition. He (Lord Campbell) was not prepared at present to assent to a measure so strong; but he thought the one now under

1111
consideration might be safely adopted, and he hoped their Lordships would give their consent to its second reading.
The DUKE of CLEVELANDsaid, that his opinion had been for a considerable time that some such measure as that before their Lordships was absolutely essential. He had come to that conclusion from the various discussions he had heard in that House upon the subject. He referred particularly to the time when the late Lord Cottenham brought forward a measure of this kind, and when that noble and learned Lord made a statement so admirably clear and lucid as to render the subject perfectly intelligible to the humblest intellect. With regard to this measure, he (the Duke of Cleveland) thought it would be allowed on all hands that it was desirable to get rid of the old feudal system of copyhold tenure. It tended to create a number of endless disputes, heartburnings, and bickerings, which would at once cease if copyhold property was enfranchised, not suddenly or abruptly, but by degrees and in the course of time. In some manors heriots and similar burdens were easily compounded for; but as there were good landlords and bad landlords, so there were good lords of manors and bad lords. Their Lordships had heard one case where a racehorse that had won the Derby, and was worth 4,000 l., had been taken as a heriot. One serious evil, among others incident to copyholds, was, that in different counties different customs obtained. With regard to minerals, for example, in which he was interested, in the two counties of Durham and Staffordshire the custom differed materially. In Durham the lord of the manor had a right to break the soil of the copyhold property, and to work the mines underneath; but in Staffordshire he had no such right. In former Bills voluntary enfranchisement only was provided for; but he had no hesitation in saying that without some compulsory clause it would be impossible to carry out the objects of this measure. In his opinion it was most desirable that the Bill should be read a second time. He gave no opinion as to referring it to a Select Committee; he only was anxious not to endanger its progress through the House this Session.
LORD BEAUMONThad listened with much regret to the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, because he understood the noble and learned Lord to be opposed to the principle of the Bill;
1112
and he must say he was surprised, after listening to that speech, to find that the noble and learned Lord adopted its principle by suggesting that it should be referred to a Select Committee. To that recommendation, however, he (Lord Beaumont) had no objection whatever, inasmuch as from a careful examination of the subject, and a minute perusal of the Bill, he thought it was in such a state as to require the revision of a Committee. He now rose merely to appeal to Her Majesty's Government, who he supposed intended to support the course marked out by the Lord Chancellor, that they should send the measure to a Committee with the sincere intention of endeavouring to make the Bill practicable, and passing it into a law in the present Session.
The DUKE of BUCCLEUCHadmitted there were many grievances in the present system of copyhold tenure, which he was anxious to see removed; but he wished it to be done in a proper and an equitable manner. The grievances in the case of heriots and fines arbitrary were very great, and operated to prevent the copyholders from effecting improvements on the land. But upon looking over the Bill, which he had done with the advantage of professional assistance, he must say he thought its tendency was more likely to produce suffering among the smaller copyholders, than to give them any effectual relief. To send it to a Select Committee was, therefore, in his opinion, the best and only way in which to treat it. He was always excessively jealous of Bills professing to deal with the property of the country which emanated from private hands, though the authors of them were, no doubt, actuated by a laudable desire to improve the law. Measures of such importance he should like to come stamped with the authority and responsibility of the law officers of the Crown. He deprecated giving rise to any claptrap about the House of Lords not passing the Bill; but he was satisfied that the Bill in its present state was not in a fit state to pass. He, therefore, supported its being sent to a Select Committee.
After a few words from the Earl of Powis,
LORD CRANWORTHexpressed his apprehension that sending the Bill to a Select Committee practically meant that it should not become law this Session. If he thought the result would be otherwise, he should rejoice at the Bill going before a

1113
Committee, as his ardent wish was that the measure should become law in the most perfect state possible.
On Question, Resolved in the Affirmative.
Bill read 2ª accordingly.
The LORD CHANCELLORmoved that the Bill be sent to a Select Committee. As his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cranworth) had expressed some alarm lest the effect of sending the measure to a Select Committee would be to prevent its passing during the present Session, he hoped he would give him credit for stating that he had no such object; and on the part of Her Majesty's Government he might state that they had no such object, but that they would go into the Committee with the determination to give the measure their best attention, and to render their honest assistance in carrying-it into effect.
LORD CAMPBELLwas, generally speaking, favourable to Bills of this nature being sent to a Select Committee; but, under all the circumstances of the case, to send the present measure to a Committee would, he feared, prove a delusion. The state of the Session, and various other considerations, induced him to believe that the effect would be to give the measure its quietus.
House adjourned to Thursday next.