Sitting of 25 June 1856

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Exchequer Bills (£4,000,000).
2° Intestates' Personal Estates.

MAYNOOTH COLLEGE BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. SPOONER: Sir, I assure the House that I am not going to trespass on their time at any length. I am not going to repeat arguments which I have often used, or to make statements which I have repeatedly made, in order to show why this Bill should pass into law. I am merely about to state its provisions; and then, without entering into the general question, to leave the House to come to a decision on the measure before them. It is first proposed by this Bill to separate all connection whatever between the Government or the nation at large and the College of Maynooth—to leave this institution to its own responsibility and resources—to leave it to its own management; and thus to do away with the great national sin of supporting a College founded on such a principle as that on which the College of Maynooth is founded, and teaching such doctrines as that College teaches. The first provision of the Bill is one to totally break up the incorporation which now exists, and to leave the managers of that College a perfectly independent body. The first clause provides "that so much of that Act as incorporates the trustees of the College be, and the same is hereby repealed." That clause would take away the corporate character of the establishment. Clause 2 states:—
"Provided always, that the several persons who at the time of the passing of this Act shall

1907
be members of the said corporation shall be and continue trustees of the said College, and shall have all such powers and authorities as to the government of the said College, the supply of vacancies in their number, and the acquiring and holding of lands, and all other the rights, privileges, and immunities which were lawfully possessed and enjoyed by the trustees of the said College at the time of the passing of the said Act, and that all property which may have been acquired by or on behalf of the said College by virtue of the provisions hereby repealed, and all other the property of the said College shall be and the same is hereby vested in and shall continue to remain the property of the said trustees."
It will, Sir, from this clause be seen that I do not propose to meddle with one iota of the property of the College; all I desire to do is, to remove any connection between that establishment and the Government of this country. Well, Sir, the second clause having made the provisions which I have stated to the House, Clause 3 states—
"Subject to the payment from time to time of such sums as will enable the said trustees, who are hereby empowered to receive and apply the same, to continue the provisions contemplated by the said recited Act to the students actually resident in the said College at the time of the passing of this Act until the expiration of the usual term of residence as students, not exceeding eight years from the time of their entry respectively, and to continue the provision mentioned in such Act towards the salaries of the president and vice-president, officers, and professors Of such College until such students' term of residence shall have expired as aforesaid, so much of the said recited Act as is comprised within the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh sections of the same, with reference to the payments of the salaries of the president, vice-president, officers, and professors, and the expense of commons, attendance, and other necessaries to be supplied for their use, and of provision for the students, and of the expenses of commons, and other necessaries in respect of the students, and for the construction and furnishing of the buildings of the said College, shall be, and the same is hereby repealed, and, except as aforesaid, it shall not be lawful for the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to pay any further moneys out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or any other public fund, to the trustees of the said College of Maynooth."
It will, Sir, be seen from those clauses that though the object of the Bill is to prevent any more grants, there are certain exceptions in favour of students who have already entered the College. These exceptions I have introduced because I do not think it would be fair that young men who entered the College on the faith of the Act which provided that they should be maintained and educated in that esta-
1908
blishment, should be deprived of those privileges so long as their studentship continues. It is for that reason the provision for the payment of money out of the Consolidated Fund, while those young men continue students, has been introduced. The fourth and last clause of the Bill enacts that—
"The 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th sections of the said Act, which relate to the appointment of visitors, the holding of visitations, the authority of such visitors, the visatatorial power, and the keeping of the minutes of such visitors, shall be and the same are hereby repealed."
That, Sir, is a very short Bill, very simple in its operation, very clear in its object—that object being to separate altogether Maynooth College from both the Government and the nation. I am anxious for this separation, because I conceive that supporting Maynooth College as it is how constituted—supporting a college teaching such doctrines as Maynooth does—is totally inconsistent, in the first place, with the Protestant constitution of this country, and, in the next, with the oath which is required of the Sovereign at the coronation. And, Sir, I will add, that the supporting of such an establishment is, in my opinion, also totally inconsistent with the Word of God. I may be told that I am no judge of that; that I have no right to set up my opinion as to what is consistent with the Word of God. I am quite aware that I have no right to set up my individual opinion dictatorially; but every man in this House has not only a right, but he is bound, in the due discharge of his duty, if he sees anything which he believes to be inconsistent with the Word of God, to use any influence which he may possess, either personally or by reason of the position in which he stands, to endeavour to rectify that which he thinks wrong. But, Sir, it is not my own opinion which I set up in this case. It is the opinion of the Church of which I and very many of the Members of this House are members; and I repeat, that the maintenance of this College by the State is inconsistent with the coronation oath, by which the Sovereign swears to maintain in its fulness and integrity the Protestant Reformed Church: that Protestant Reformed Church declares that the doctrine of the mass is idolatrous and ought to be abhorred by every one; and her Articles teach that such doctrines as are inculcated in Maynooth are blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits. We

1909
require of our Sovereign an oath that she will maintain inviolate the principles of that Church which holds, in respect of the doctrines of the Church of Rome, the opinions I have described—opinions held by all true members of the Protestant Church; and therefore I say that it is totally inconsistent, after such an oath, to ask our Sovereign to consent to the payment of this Maynooth grant—a grant paid for the maintenance of a College which maintains that the Protestant Reformed Church is a heresy, and which also teaches those doctrines which the Established Church declares to be idolatrous, blasphemous, and deceitful. I say this is inconsistent; and I cannot in anyway reconcile two such opposite principles. But, then, I am told that if this grant to Maynooth College be taken away, the first blow will be struck at the United Established Church of England and Ireland. Sir, I deny that proposition in toto. There is not the slightest analogy between the two positions. The property of the United Church is as much the property of that Church as is the property of any of the nobles and gentry of the land their property. Nay, more, let me say that many of those private properties are held on much shorter titles, and are much more liable to be assailed. I am not at all afraid of seeing the property of the United Church assailed; its title is indefeasible. The noble Lord at the head of the Government laid down the state of her case so explicitly a few nights ago, that I am not at all afraid that he will ever attack that property, which will be assailed only by a few men who desire to overthrow everything but the Romish Church; and we are not in danger of finding many such as they. But, Sir, I am not ashamed to say, frankly and fairly, that if the United Church of England and Ireland cannot stand without the support of that which that Church and the Coronation Oath both declare to be idolatrous, then the sooner she falls the better. But again I repeat that I am not afraid of that. The Established Church of England and Ireland will stand upon her own right; her property is safe; and there is no analogy whatever between the maintenance of those rights and that property, and the taxation of the country for educating the priests of a Church which teaches doctrines such as the Roman Catholic Church avowedly does. Sir, as I before said, it is not my intention to enter into any of those arguments which have so often been
1910
used in this House, but I shall confine myself to the statement which I have made in respect of what the Bill proposes to do. I trust that the opponents of the Bill will be as brief as I have been, and that they will not be afraid to allow the House to come to a decision this day on the question. I am perfectly willing to abide by that decision, and I think that this question ought not to be adjourned from day to day. I have been told that this discussion will break the harmony between parties that now exists; a harmony which will exist no longer than we continue to concede all the demands which the Roman Catholics choose to make. But I think that the best way to maintain real harmony is to let the House of Commons speak out and say, are they willing to support this College of Maynooth? Let the country at large know the decision of the House—whether Roman Catholic priests are still to be educated at the expense of the public, or be left, as they ought to be, to their own resources and management. There is no necessity for pecuniary assistance to the Roman Catholics; they are a rich body; they can find money for everything they want. We see them erecting in this country the most magnificent buildings; we see that they spare no expense to give to their places of worship all the allurements that can be provided, not merely to bring together members of their own communion, but also to induce Protestants to attend, and so swell the congregation—not to provide for congregations, but to make congregations. They are every day endeavouring to propagate their faith; they display the greatest energy in seeking for converts; and therefore, on the lowest and simplest ground of necessity, there is no case of want made out on their part. And, Sir, to what other denomination do we give such assistance? If the College of the Roman Catholics is to be endowed, why should we not endow establishments for the Methodists, the Baptists, and the Independents? Why should the Roman Catholic College alone be singled out for support from the public taxation of the country? But, Sir, there is no occasion for me to proceed with arguments of this kind, for the House has already so far assented to my proposition, by a majority, as to put me in a position now to ask for the second reading of this Bill. I shall, however, just say one word in reference to the course taken by the Government with respect to this Bill on a former

1911
occasion. I know of no other instance in which, after a Committee of the whole House had come to the determination to direct a Bill on a particular subject to be brought in, two subsequent divisions on the same evening were taken in order to prevent the introduction of that Bill. Such a course of proceeding was, in my opinion, totally inconsistent with the practice of Parliament; and I can only account for it by supposing that it was adopted in the hope that some few stragglers who had not heard the discussion might be induced to come in and vote against the introduction of the Bill. However, Sir, notwithstanding all this, a majority still remained. The vote of that majority enabled me to bring in the Bill; and I now ask the House to give it a second reading. If there be—and perhaps there may be—matters of detail in the Bill requiring amendment, amendment can be made in Committee. I can, however, assure the House that the Bill was drawn by an able lawyer, who framed it to meet the evil of which I complain; to leave the property in the hands of those to whom it belongs, namely, the Roman Catholics; to leave in their hands the management of their own concerns, but to separate those concerns from all connection with the State. Sir, I move that this Bill be now read a second time.
SIR WILLIAM VERNERsaid, in rising to second the Motion, he would not have thought of trespassing on the time of the House, had it not been for the Amendment of which the hon. and learned Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire) had given notice, and the continued opposition on the part of the Friends of that hon. Member—notwithstanding the three votes on the same night in favour of it—and the immense number of petitions against the continued endowment of Maynooth which had been presented to that and the other House of Parliament from all parts of the United Kingdom. It had been very generally circulated in Ireland that this measure was an attack upon the Irish Roman Catholics. Now, so far as he was concerned, he gave it the most unqualified contradiction, and he was sure that no such intention had ever entered into the mind of his hon. Friend. He (Sir W. Verner) was well acquainted with many Roman Catholics in Ireland, for whom he entertained a sincere personal regard, and he believed that they did not entertain a less favourable opinion of him. But this question had no refe-
1912
rence to the Roman Catholics. He considered Maynooth College and the Roman Catholics were quite distinct; and he believed that the College of Maynooth was one of the greatest misfortunes that could be inflicted on them. ["Oh, oh!"] He thought it would have been much better for the Roman Catholics if this institution had never existed. With regard to the Motion now before the House, he did not think there could be any difficulty. He thought the question which the House had to consider was merely, whether the education of students in that establishment was conducted in such a manner as to carry out the intentions of the founders, and to render it deserving of the aid of Parliament. On a former occasion the hon. and learned Member for Dungarvan said—
"If it could be proved that the teaching of Maynooth attacked our social existence by tampering with oaths, contracts, and allegiance, he would say, 'Down with Maynooth.'"
Now he (Sir W. Verner), though he did not expect to convince the hon. Member, yet he thought he would be able to show that the College of Maynooth had interfered with all three; and in reference to the first referred to by the hon. and learned Member—namely, oaths—it was stated in evidence before a Committee of the House of Lords in 1825 by a late Bishop of his (Mr. Maguire's) own Church, (Dr. Doyle) that—
"The students at Maynooth were obliged to take the oath of allegiance prescribed to be taken by Roman Catholics."
It was perfectly true, as stated by the right rev. Doctor, that the students of Maynooth were required to take an oath of allegiance. But it was equally clear from that that the impression which Dr. Doyle wished to make on the Committee was, that the oath of allegiance prescribed to be taken by the students at Maynooth was what was universally considered to be the oath of allegiance; but he (Sir W. Verner) could show, from the evidence of other witnesses, who were examined before the same Committee, that the following was the oath required to be taken by every priest on being collated to a parish. It was—
"I acknowledge that the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Rome is the mother and mistress of all Churches. And I do promise and swear true obedience to the Pope, successor of Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ; also all the things defined, delivered, and declared by the sacred canons and

1913
councils, and especially of the Holy Council of Trent; and I condemn, reject, and anathematise all things contrary thereto, and all heresies which the Church has condemned, rejected, and anathematised. This true Catholic faith, without which no man can be saved, which at the present I do voluntarily profess and truly hold, the same will I take care to hold entire and inviolate, by God's help, most constantly even to the last breath of my life; and as much as in me lieth, to be held, taught, and preached by those that are under me, or whose care belongs to me in my office. This I do promise, vow, and swear, so help me God."
This oath was handed into the Committee by Dr. Dixon, a converted priest, and was corroborated by the rev. Doctor Phelum, who had also been a Roman Catholic. The House was told that the abolition of the Maynooth grant would be a breach of contract. He believed that that argument was used by many persons from a conscientious feeling; but, he believed also it was taken up by others merely to justify them in giving their vote for the continuance of the grant to Maynooth. He believed the reasons which had led to the establishment of the Maynooth endowment were not unknown to the House. The Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland had, previous to the establishment of Maynooth, been educated mostly abroad, and it was feared from their foreign education they might have imbibed democratic and revolutionary principles; and in order to meet this objection it was resolved to give an annual grant to the college at Maynooth. That was what was called a contract. He would ask hon. Members what was a contract? A contract, as they must know, was an agreement between two parties, and if either party deviated from the terms of that contract it became void and at an end. Now, he would ask, had he not shown that Maynooth college had not only deviated from her contract with the State, but was absolutely acting in a manner most injurious to the country's interest? Was it to be contended, therefore, that the payment to that College should be continued? He would wish to submit to the House the opinion of a gentleman of high standing and great talent, who had for many years been a Member of that House, and who had held one of the highest offices under the Crown. The title of the book from which he would quote was "The State in its Relations with the Church By W. E. Gladstone, Esq., Student of Christ Church, and M. P. for Newark;" and Mr. Gladstone's statement was as follows—
1914
"The support of the College of Maynooth was originally undertaken by the Protestant Parliament of Ireland, in the anticipation that has since proved miserably fallacious, that a more loyal class of priests would be produced by a home education than by a foreign one, and that a gradual mitigation in the features of Irish Romanism would be produced when her ministers were no longer familiarised with its condition in continental countries, where it remains the religion of the state. Instead of which, it has been found that the facility of education at home has opened the priesthood to a lower and less cultivated class, and one more liable to the influence of secondary motives. In amount, this grant is niggardly and unworthy—in principle, it is wholly vicious; and it will be a thorn in the side of these countries so long as it is continued."
If the House concurred in opinion with the right hon. Gentleman, they must arrive at the conclusion that this grant could not be maintained on grounds of "contract." In a former discussion, the hon. and learned Member for Dungarvan denied that the Roman Catholic priests were averse to circulating the Scriptures in Ireland, that, on the contrary, he had it on the authority of a Dublin bookseller or publisher, that he had himself published Bibles and Testaments which had been approved of by the Archbishop of Tuam and the Roman Catholic clergy. [Mr. MAGUIRE: Hear, hear.] Now, the hon. and learned Member had not told the House what was done with Bibles and Testaments when circulated throughout Ireland. He (Sir W. Verner) would state to the House the treatment they received. He would read to the House an extract from a letter which he had received from the clergyman of the parish to which it referred, and which bore date the 10th of February, 1852:—
"I enclose two accounts of Bible-burning in this parish by the Franciscan monks who reside on one of your hon. Member's property.
"I myself was an eye-witness of their conduct, as two of them came a distance of two miles to burn a New Testament on a small bridge near the Scripture-reader's house.
"On my remonstrating with them, one of them thrust the blazing book into my face, saying, 'It was the devil's book; damnable, devilish, heretical.'
"You will see by the letter I inclose that the priest, the Rev. Peter Ward, ordered this to be done, and also that the ashes of the books should be buried, lest they should pollute the land."
This would prove how much the Holy Scriptures were respected by the Roman Catholic priests; he would now give an instance, from the Students who were educated at Maynooth, after they had left it, of the allegiance inculcated in that

1915
College, and would read from a local paper the report of a soirée of the Young Men's Society, held at Limerick in June last. It commenced by giving a list of the visitors, stating—"Amongst others the Revs. H. O'Farrell, Cosgrove, Danac, O'Higgins, M'Donnell, O'Neill, O'Collaghan, Hastings, Doyle, &c." The report then proceeded—
"The chair was taken by the Rev. G. Butler, of St. Michael's, spiritual director of the society. The chairman said, the toast first on the list was one which, if introduced at all, could hold no other than the first place in an assembly of the children of the Catholic Church; it was a toast which he knew all would receive with fervent enthusiasm and with deep and solemn veneration—it was 'Our Holy Father, Pope Pius IX.'—(Immense cheering and waving of handkerchiefs, again and again renewed.) The next toast in order was 'The Queen.'—(Applause.)"
The House would remark that there were no "waving of handkerchiefs or other demonstrations of applause," after the Queen's health was proposed. The report concluded —"The Rev. Mr. Butler having vacated the chair, dancing commenced, and was continued until six o'clock next morning." He would beg to remind the House that this meeting was held on a Sunday. So much for the teaching of Maynooth. He believed he had shown that he was entitled to the vote of the hon. and learned Member for Dungarvan in favour of the measure, by proving that Maynooth did tamper with "oaths, contracts, and allegiance." Before concluding, he wished to call the attention of the House to a circumstance which had occurred when this question was under discussion last Session. The then Irish Attorney General (now Mr. Justice Keogh) made use of expressions which he thought most extraordinary, coming from a person filling one of the highest law offices under the Crown and a Member of Her Majesty's Government. That hon. and learned Gentleman, addressing the hon. Member who had brought forward the Motion, and those who supported it, asked them if they "are aware of the consequences, should this measure pass, and the effect it would produce on the part of 6,000,000 of the Roman Catholics of Ireland?" Now, he considered this a monstrous statement, coming from an Irish Attorney General, and addressed to Members who were conscientiously discharging their duty in this House, acting in accordance with the instructions of their constituents, and supporting the sentiments
1916
expressed in the numerous petitions which had been presented to the House. He trusted that hon. Members would vote in accordance with the merits of the question. It had been clearly shown that while the support of Maynooth was inconsistent in a Protestant State, the institution itself had more than failed in carrying out the intentions of its founders—that it had, in fact, acted in direct opposition to them; and he therefore trusted that the second reading of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire's Bill would be carried by a large majority.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. JAMES MACGREGORsaid, he had no difficulty whatever in deciding as to the course which he should take on the present occasion. The House had, after full and repeated discussions upon the subject, resolved, as far back as three months ago, that this Bill should be introduced. All the arguments, whether for or against the measure, had been over and over again submitted to the House, and might therefore be said to be exhausted. But the ground upon which he was prepared to support the second reading of the Bill was the principle, as he understood the words, of "religious and civil liberty." He believed that the teaching at Maynooth was totally and entirely contrary to that principle—that it was as inimical to political as it was to religious liberty; and he trusted the House would affirm that view in the same decided manner as it did on the 15th of April last. The evidence taken before the Royal Commissioners amounted to this—that it was taught at Maynooth that the Sovereign Pontiff of Rome was superior in spiritual if not temporal matters to Her Majesty the Queen of these realms, and that what was inimical to his interests and power was not to be supported against his authority. He understood, then, that the spiritual authority exercised in behalf of the Pontiff of Rome, through his clergy and through the teaching at Maynooth, was subversive of that attachment and loyalty to the Queen which was her due from every Roman Catholic, as well as every Protestant subject of Her Majesty. Now, he believed that if Her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects were left to the free exercise of their own will and conviction, they would he as loyal, as peaceable,

1917
and as much attached to the Throne and the institutions of the country as any other class of people; but under the influence of the teaching at Maynooth, and of that despotic and tyrannical system of priestcraft which had its centre in Rome, it was impossible that free volition could he exercised by those who entertained the sentiments which were propagated at Maynooth. The tactics of the House of Commons were sometimes of a very peculiar character, however; and looking at the thin state of the benches, and remembering recent events, it need not astonish the constituencies of the country even if the decision arrived at by that House on the 15th of April were reversed in this month of June. Still he would fain believe that the principles upon which that decision was pronounced were so thoroughly recognised by a majority in that House, and by a majority of the constituencies of Great Britain, that it would be again affirmed. If they could suppose the matter to be one that was lightly regarded out of doors, then he admitted that it would be well if these discussions were at once put an end to, for in a national point of view he looked upon the amount of money voted to Maynooth as a mere bagatelle. But the fact was, that there was a great principle at stake—the principle of maintaining the right of private judgment—the principle of freedom, even for the Catholics themselves. He would not attempt, for one moment, to argue the question upon religious grounds. He believed that upon those grounds every hon. Member entered the House with a mind as much made up as his own. He would content himself with saying, that in a political sense, and in regard to the maintenance of that liberty which we happily enjoyed in this country, and which it had cost our forefathers so much to achieve, he hoped the House would no longer pledge itself to the maintenance of establishments whose office it was to promulgate doctrines that were alike subversive of the authority of Her Majesty, were incompatible with civil and religious liberty, and destructive of those institutions upon which the prosperity of the country was based. He held that the inestimable blessings of a free press, trial by jury, an independent bar, and even representative institutions themselves, would he jeopardised if the principles upon which Maynooth was founded and supported were to be the order of the day. Years ago, when the ques-
1918
tion was under consideration, he had hoped that an inquiry would have been made into the management and teaching of Maynooth by a Select Committee of that House. It was certainly true that such a Committee might not be the best tribunal to which to send questions of a religious nature; but it had this advantage—there was a large amount of freedom in its investigations, and there was also the certainty of its arriving at a fair and candid decision. For those reasons, therefore, he should have been the better satisfied if the Report as to Maynooth, which was now lying upon the table, had emanated from a Committee of that House, instead of a Royal Commission. As the inquiry had been conducted, it did not seem to him to have savoured much either of trial by jury or a free press; before the Report of the Commission was submitted to Her Majesty they heard that it had been laid before another Sovereign; and that Sovereign one whose tenure of regal or temporal power seemed to be, in the opinions of Roman Catholics themselves, of the most doubtful and precarious nature, whose authority was so weak in his own territory, where society was in the utmost state of disorder and confusion, that but for the support which he derived from foreign bayonets his reign would speedily be at an end. In conclusion, bearing in mind what had taken place at the last election—what had been the declared opinion of the country upon the subject on that occasion, and that that opinion was not changed by any circumstances which had since occurred, but was even more widely and strongly entertained by the constituencies, he hoped the House would show itself the faithful representative of the public sentiment, and by agreeing to the second reading of the Bill affirm the principle it enunciated on the 15th of April last.
MR. H. HERBERTsaid, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) had expressed a wished that the House should come to a decision upon the question at once. He (Mr. Herbert) would be happy to assist the hon. Gentleman in securing that object, and with that view he would beg to move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time on that day three months.
Amendment proposed to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
MR. NAPIERsaid, he had understood

1919
his hon. Friend (Mr. Spooner) to express the wish that a decision should be arrived at that day, and not that any hon. Member should be precluded from expressing his opinions upon the subject. And he thought that where the State made or refused to make, or withdrew, grants of public money, especially in a case of this kind, it was the solemn duty of the Members of that House to explain the reasons on which their decision was founded. It was still more necessary when the country was so divided to abstain in the course of their discussions from all inflammatory language. Now there were two views in which the college of Maynooth might be regarded, and they were totally distinct. It might either be treated as an educational establishment, or as a religious endowment. But with respect to the latter, he had never understood that the grant was professed by the State to be supported on that ground. At no period under the constitution of this country—certainly not since the Reformation—had a State endowment of any other than the established religion been known. The Regium donum in Ireland was made in the shape of an annual Parliamentary grant, and the grant to Maynooth itself was, as stated in the Statute of 1845, for the better education of those who were to enter the priesthood, and not one word was said with reference to its being in the nature of a religious endowment. Now, the Bill of his hon. Friend (Mr. Spooner) sought to repeal the Statute of 1845, and he put this plainly and fearlessly to the House, that if it appeared upon the inquiry that had been had and the evidence taken, that the purpose and object of that Statute, so far from being carried out, had, in reality, been frustrated and defeated by the grant of public money, then that in itself was ground for the discontinuance of the grant. The object of the Statute was to increase the facilities which had been given under previous Statutes for having a domestic, well-educated Roman Catholic priesthood, and that object was an intelligible one. But if the State gave money for that purpose, it was surely its duty to see that that money was properly applied. It appeared, however, upon the evidence, that the money granted to Maynooth was applied to the support and propagation of Ultramontanism, not for the purpose of giving a good and enlightened education, but a compulsory and an unsound education, from the principles and dangerous doctrines of which the majority
1920
of that House and the country differed. He contended then, that they had no right to vote away public money, if such money, professedly given for one object, were devoted to another and a totally different one. Let it be observed that since the passing of the measure of 1845 an entirely new state of things had arisen in Ireland; that for the first time in the history of that country they had now an ecclesiastic appointed as Roman Catholic Primate of Dublin, at the sole will and pleasure of the Pope, and he believed contrary to the wishes of the domestic clergy; that that ecclesiastic was a Legate of the Pope, and that the independence of the clergy was altogether at an end. If, then, the original agreement of Maynooth was to provide a clergy who should be free from foreign influences—who should be a National clergy, with a National episcopate; and if the Statute of 1845 gave power to extend, not alter, that object, he asked, were they acting fairly by the trust reposed in them, and carrying out the object contemplated by the Legislature which founded the College of Maynooth, if they allowed the grant to be applied by a Legate of the Pope himself to the education of 500 free students in the doctrines of Ultramontanism? It was stated the other night that there were at the present moment upwards of 3,000 National schools in Ireland presided over by Roman Catholic priests. Well, those priests were nominated to Maynooth by the Legate of the Pope, the Ultramontane Archbishop of Dublin, and of course were educated in Ultramontane doctrines. They were then taken and placed over those schools, with power to enforce the Papal edicts upon the consciences of the people. Much was said, in the course of the recent debate, about the necessity of preserving parental authority and the rights of conscience, and strong denunciations were hurled against systems of compulsory instruction. On that occasion they refused to give one farthing of public money to those who asked it for the purpose of putting forward in its pure simplicity the truth of God's Word, because theirs was a compulsory education; yet they continued an Act of Parliament which placed £30,000 a year at the disposal of the Pope's Legate, and those other Archbishops and Bishops who had sworn upon the Holy Gospels administered by the Pope's Legate that they would execute the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent amongst all their co-religionists in

1921
Ireland. He had stated that Ultramontane doctrines were taught at Maynooth; and that was a vital question as to which the evidence, though short, was to his mind most decisive. In the year 1826 a Commission was appointed, not so much to inquire specifically into the College of Maynooth as into the educational establishments of Ireland. Certain Professors of Maynooth were examined before that Commission, and they gave a list of the works which were then used as class-books in the institution, and as standard works that represented their opinions. Amongst those works, it was stated by Professor Furlong that "the treatises prepared by Dr. Delahogue and those written by Bailly were the class-books on dogmatic and moral theology." But although thirty years ago it was stated that those works contained their standard opinions, it now appeared, according to the evidence of the Professors examined before the late Commission, that there were no books to which they could refer as containing their standard opinions; and in answer to the question,
"In what way would any person form an opinion; to what would you refer him as indicating the opinions at Maynooth, or the course of teaching at Maynooth upon discussed points?"
Dr. Crolly, one of the professors, said,—
"I could not refer the Commissioners to any book; and I have already stated that in my written answer. … I do not know any course of theology that would indicate exactly the opinions taught in Maynooth."
Now, it was a remarkable fact that, subsequently to that inquiry in 1826, Bailly's Theology was put in the Index Librorum Prohibitorum by the authorities at Rome, and that the moment it was put there the trustees of Maynooth expunged it from their course, and discontinued its use in the college; and the reason for that proceeding, it would seem, was, that the book contained opinions which were considered as having a Gallican tendency. But the Moral Theology of Scavini had been substituted for that of Bailly; and according to the evidence of Dr. Renehan, the President of Maynooth, it was at the suggestion of the professors themselves that Scavini's book had been introduced. The Report of the Committee stated that the professors "were requested by the trustees to suggest what book could be substituted for Bailly, and that they did suggest the Theologia Moralis of Dr. Scavini." Various reasons were given by the professors why Scavini's book had been substituted
1922
for Bailly's; but he (Mr. Napier) believed that the true reason was that the former took the Ultramontane, whilst the latter took the Gallican side; and it was well known that in the Roman Catholic Church the divines who took those opposite sides were as different from one another as Arminian and Calvinist. Well, he asked the House, seeing that the position of the Roman Catholic episcopate in Ireland and the course of teaching at Maynooth had been so completely changed of late years, no longer to continue a grant which had ceased to be applied to the object for which it was originally designed. He said this with great regret, living as he did on cordial terms with so many Roman Catholics. But there was another part of the question which was perhaps even more important than that to which he had referred—he meant with regard to the canon law of Rome. That was a matter of supreme importance, inasmuch as it was through the instrumentality of that law that the consciences of the Roman Catholic laity were coerced. If there were any sincerity in the Resolution the House had come to the other night—if they really did desire in respect to the education of the Irish people to maintain the rights of conscience, then they were bound to look with peculiar jealousy at this part of the case; but if they gave money to educate a priesthood, and enable that priesthood to put in force the canon law of Rome, and that canon law was brought to bear upon the consciences of the people, it was a mockery, and nothing less than a mockery, to talk to him about the rights of conscience and authority of the parent. There was a remarkable fact with respect to the canon law which came out in the course of the inquiry of 1826, and again before the Royal Commissioners on a recent occasion. On the 29th of September, 1854, Professor O'Hanlon, the prefect of the Dunboyne establishment, stated in evidence in writing, "The books from which I collect matter for my lectures in canon law are (in addition to Cabbasutius, the class-book appointed by the trustees) the works of Reiffenstuel, &c." In his oral examination on the 4th October, he also said, "I have omitted to state that Cabbasutius is the class-book used by order of the board of trustees." He was then asked, "Do you consider that the class-book indicates the doctrines inculcated?" to which he answered, "Yes; we do not depart from the doctrine of Cabbasutius

1923
generally. There are some matters, however, with regard to which we do not exactly adopt his views." But on the 10th of January following, another professor (Neville) was examined; and what did he say? He was asked, "Is not Cabbasutius the text-book on canon law in the College of Maynooth?" "No," said he, "not at present; the text-book is Devoti." He was then asked, "How long has that Devoti been the class-book?" and he answered, "I think it must have been for the last twenty years." "But Cabbasutius is a class-book, is it not?" he was again asked, and his answer was, "It was formerly; but it has been found not to be sufficiently full, and Devoti has been substituted for it." Now, it was a very remarkable fact, that in 1826 Dr. Murray, the then Archbishop of Dublin, was asked this question as to Cabbasutius, "What book was used before Cabbasutius as a book on canon law?" His answer was, "I believe that Cabbasutius was the first which was authorised by the Board as a book on canon law." He is then asked, "Do you recollect any other books brought over by Dr. Troy, at any time?" to which he replied, "Yes." "Why were they not used?" "Because they were supposed to inculcate opinions too strong with regard to the interference of spiritual authority in temporal matters." "And for that reason they were not used in the college?" "Yes, for that reason they were not used." "What was the name?" "Devoti." "And Cabbasutius was introduced in lieu of it?" "I cannot say it was introduced in lieu of it, because there was no book of that description authorised till Cabbasutius was adopted." Here, then, they had Scavini introduced in the place of Bailly, and Devoti in the place of Cabbasutius. In other words, Ultramontanism had been introduced, or teaching which "inculcated opinions too strong with regard to the interference of spiritual authority in temporal matters." Now, if the House were in earnest in treating the College of Maynooth simply as an educational institution, they might effect the object by annual grant as well as by endowment, and if the education given there were such as they all agreed in, there was no reason why it should not be an annual grant. They might then take care that the money was fairly and properly applied, and not handed over to those who were appointed by the Pope, and who felt it to be their duty to apply it in a manner that the majority
1924
of that House could not reconcile to their consciences. He must also be allowed to say, that in these matters the State ought to have a conscience as much as any private individual. Let them give as large an amount of liberty as possible; but not forget that, as a State, they were responsible to God for the proper discharge of their duty. Our great poet had well said—
"There is a mystery in the soul of state,
Which hath an operation more divine
Than breath or pain can give expression to."
Well, the House had seen that the public money was applied to support the teaching of Ultramontanism, to pay the Professor of Canon Law for teaching the doctrines of Devoti, a book which in the year 1826, previous to Catholic emancipation, had been set aside because it inculcated doctrines that were considered too strong as to the interference of the spirituality in temporal matters; and they were paying that money under an Act of Parliament, which tied up their hands, deprived them of all control over the establishment, and enabled the Church of Rome from the centre of its authority to fetter the conscience, and by the operation of the canon law to introduce a system of compulsion and coercion. They had heard much of the Synod of Thurles, and according to the evidence of the very rev. Dean Meyler before the Commissioners on Maynooth, the Statutes of the Synod of Thurles were "binding on the consciences" of the clergy in Ireland "in all mandatory decrees to observe them; that they were sent to Rome for the approbation of the Pope, and that when they came home with his approbation, of course they were law. He (Mr. Napier) had also been very much struck with a letter written by an intelligent Roman Catholic layman, which appeared in the Northern Whig, a Belfast newspaper, at the time the Synod of Thurles was held, and in which the writer said—
"It is my melancholy duty now to raise my humble voice, as all enlightened Catholics and liberal Protestants should do, in defence of their helpless countrymen, to save them from the persecuting influence of the decrees of the Catholic hierarchy lately in council assembled at Thurles; for I believe that the opinions of the Primate, if not neutralised or nullified by some merciful measure of the Government, must prove ruinous to the Catholics of this country. In truth, my Lord, I consider the proceedings of that synod an indirect persecution against the Catholics of this country."
He (Mr. Napier) had about the same period declared the people, the Roman Catholic

1925
laity, were interested in having a domestic clergy, an independent Church, personal freedom of conscience, and individual liberty of conduct; and by that opinion he was prepared to abide. They talked the other day of the Austrian Concordat, and later than that of the rights of conscience, parental authority, and civil and religious liberty; and yet by this grant to the College of Maynooth they crippled the rights of conscience, overrode parental authority, and violated civil and religious liberty. But they had been told that if they touched Maynooth they must prepare for the downfall of the Irish Church, and very recently they had had a debate upon that question, at the close of which nearly all the Roman Catholic Members of the House voted in favour of applying the property of the Church to the construction of piers and lighthouses, and other secular purposes equally desecrative. Now, as to the Established Church in Ireland, all he had to say was, that its title and permanence rested upon entirely different grounds; and with his hon. Friend (Mr. Spooner) he would say that if it could only be upheld by the continuance of a system which in his conscience he believed went to rivet the fetters of bondage upon the Roman Catholic portion of the Irish people, "rather than that should be the case, let it fall." The best title of the Established Church in Ireland was to be found in this fact, that it was a witness for what the State regarded as truth. It had also its traditions, its historical title, and what was known as its "Parliamentary title." But, after all, its real title must consist in its being a faithful witness for the truth; and whenever either it or its sister Church in England ceased to perform the great mission confided to them, he had no wish whatever that it should last one hour longer. In the present instance, however, they were dealing merely with an Act of Parliament, the object of which, he contended, had not been fulfilled. If the endowment of Maynooth were treated as a religious endowment, then he objected to it that it was incompatible with the religion of the State, as well as incompatible with the Act of Union, which recognised the existence of but one endowed Church, whilst, if it were treated as an educational endowment, it had failed altogether in its purpose and object. The view which he had that day expressed with regard to the safety of the Church was one which had been taken not many years ago by His
1926
Royal Highness Prince Albert, in an eloquent speech, characterised by all that depth and purity of sentiment and amount of intelligence which gave power to His Royal Highness's opinions—
"I have no fear," said His Royal Highness, "for her safety and ultimate welfare so long as she holds fast to what our ancestors gained for us at the Reformation—the Gospel, and the unfettered right of its use.
The Church of Ireland was certainly prepared to stand by that principle. Truth and freedom were inseparably united. What, therefore, God had joined together let no man attempt to sunder; and it was because he thought that the money which Parliament had voted was given to perpetuate bondage, to promulgate the doctrines of Ultramontanism, and defeat the very object which was professed by the Act of Parliament endowing Maynooth, that he now felt called upon, though with unfeigned reluctance, to give his vote in support of the Bill of his hon. Friend, whatever the consequences to which it might lead.
MR. MAGUIRE: Sir, the Catholic Members of this House were challenged by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) not to stand in the way of a division on his Motion; and that challenge they were ready, and are still willing, to accept. So far am I from declining the issue of a division, that although I had placed a notice of my Amendment on the paper—that the Bill of the hon. Member should be read this day three months—I authorised the hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. Herbert) to move that Amendment, in order to give the promoters of the Bill an opportunity for taking the division at once; but as that offer was not accepted, and as four hon. Members have spoken against Maynooth, and not only against that institution, but against the religious faith and teaching of the Catholic people and clergy of Ireland, I deem it my duty to endeavour to defend that institution, that people, and that priesthood, against some, at least, of the calumnies uttered against all three. I am willing, Sir, to give the hon. Member for Warwickshire credit for the sincerity of his motives; but I contend that he is grossly deceived and misled in reference to everything connected with the Catholic Church in Ireland. In his speech, and in those made on the same side of the House by other hon. Gentlemen, the old calumnies have been revived, and relied upon as the

1927
justification of the Motion to read this penal Bill a second time. The hon. Member expresses his desire to wash away from Protestant England the stain of the national sin which she incurs in supporting Maynooth, whose teaching is opposed to the word of God; and he repeats his venerable accusation of "idolatry, blasphemy, and deceit." Other gentlemen have added their contributions to the indictment against Maynooth and the religious faith of the Irish people. Let us see if these accusations be not the mere wanderings of heated imaginations, without a shadow of truth to sustain them. Now, my answer to all these and similar charges is this—that the character and conduct of the Catholic priesthood and people of Ireland are sufficient proof that such charges are futile and absurd, and that the teaching of Maynooth is in accordance, and not in opposition to, the word of God. The present Bill is a penal measure, and is ostensibly based upon the assumption that Maynooth has grievously sinned against morality and social order, and that the Catholic religion has been tried and found wanting. Before such a Bill can pass this House, those allegations, on which its necessity is ostensibly based, must be proved beyond doubt or question. Have they been proved?—rather, have they not been disproved, over and over again? The hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir W. Verner) has recalled certain expressions of mine on a former occasion, from which I do not now shrink. I then said if it were proved that the teaching of Maynooth touched our social existence, by tampering, not merely with the allegiance of the subject to the Sovereign, but with the sanctity of oaths and the sacredness of contracts—if it were proved that such teaching had a tendency to sever those ties and destroy those obligations which bind man to man in the social relations of life—I, as a Catholic, would, from my heart and soul cry, "Down with Maynooth!" Now there are two modes by which the value of the accusations on which the Bill is based may be tested; the first is, to examine into the institution itself, its doctrines, its teachings, and its discipline; and the next to go into a far larger field of inquiry—namely, into the moral character and conduct of the Irish people, who have received their religious teaching from the clergy educated in Maynooth. Will hon. Gentlemen have the goodness to recollect that there has been an inquiry, a recent in-
1928
quiry, strict and searching, into the teaching of Maynooth; and that the result has been the triumphant vindication of that institution from the foul calumnies so wickedly and wantonly levelled against it. That inquiry, once so strongly insisted upon, is either overlooked or sneered at by hon. Members, who find that the result is not such as suits the object they have in view. Maynooth was asserted to be a hot-bed of sedition, and its doctrines utterly subversive of allegiance to the Sovereign. This is the assertion; but what say the Commissioners, who have narrowly and minutely searched into this allegation, with reference to it?—They say:—"We should, however, be doing injustice to the college if we failed to report, as the general result of the whole evidence before us, that we see no reason to believe that there has been any disloyalty in the teaching of the college, or any disposition to impair the obligation of an unreserved allegiance to your Majesty." It was also asserted that the course of instruction by which the Catholic priest was prepared for the duties of confession, was calculated to deprave his mind, and destroy his moral purity. What do the Commissioners say on this point? They say:—"We are bound to say that we have no reason to believe, from the evidence of any party, that those studies have had practically an injurious effect upon the mind or character of the students." Then as to the character of the students who are to be the priests and teachers of the Catholic people of Ireland—"We have heard no imputation from any quarter against the moral character of the young men; and we have no reason to believe that their general character is other than irreproachable." I now confidently ask the House, are the vague accusations, are the unsupported allegations, are the wild delusions under which the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and some of his really honest supporters are labouring, to be weighed for one moment against the solemn conclusion at which the Commissioners, after full and minute inquiry, have arrived? The right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier) wants to judge the College of Maynooth by some isolated passage in one of its text books, and is angry with the Professors because they will not be judged of by such fallible test. I should like to know was there a book ever written from which some passage might not be gleaned

1929
that, read by itself, and without the context, might not be quoted against the author? Nay, is there a man in this House against whom some sentence which he had spoken at some time or another, might not be quoted with a mischievous ingenuity, to the detriment of his sense or his judgment? And is a great institution to be condemned, not because it teaches certain doctrines and opinions, but because it uses books which contain passages which its Professors do not teach, and do not agree with? If sufficient time were afforded them, the Professors intended to compile text-books for the use of the College, to which no objection could be taken; but as yet they are compelled to use works which may contain some few passages which can never by any possibility apply to the present times or state of society. As a proof of the perfect freedom with which the Professors deal with the textbooks from which they lecture, I refer hon. Members to the evidence given by two of that body upon this important point:—
Dr. Crolly (page 191)—"The spirit of the teaching in Maynooth cannot be deduced at all from the class-books in use and authorised, except in what concerns Catholic doctrine and defined things. I do not form my opinions from the class-books, because I consider that when I lecture upon a subject, it is my duty to ascertain, not what a man teaches, but what is true and what is false. I lecture according to what I believe, without reference to the peculiar opinions of the class-book in question."
Dr. Russell (page 69)—"The public do not understand the degree of freedom which, in the Schools of Catholic Theology, we enjoy in relation to the works which we employ as our text-books. We do not consider ourselves bound to hold—except in those matters which are of faith or closely connected therewith, the doctrines laid down in a text-book. On the contrary, in many cases, I have known the Professor's lecture to consist in disproving the doctrine which is laid down in the text-book."
Maynooth, notwithstanding the evidence and the report of the late Commission, is a fountain source of all evil, and the State, in order to free itself from a grievous responsibility, must tear from it its means of support, and publicly brand it, its teachers, its students, its faith, and all who hold that faith, with a stigma of infamy. Now, with regard to the real conditions and character of this institution, I may quote the deliberately recorded opinion of a gentleman of distiction and rank in his profession—not a Roman Catholic, but either a Scotch Presbyterian or a Scotch Protestant. The work I refer to was written by Sir John Forbes, Physician to the Queen. This in-
1930
telligent gentleman visited Ireland some three years since, and, as I believe, with an earnest desire to know the truth, and a conscientious desire to state it. He visited Maynooth; and this is the result of his investigation:—
"On the whole, from what I myself saw at Maynooth, and from what I have since learned respecting it, I am bound to conclude that it is a well planned and well managed institution, calculated to communicate to its students a good secular as well as a religious education, and to send them forth amply qualified for the discharge of their sacred functions as priests, and, as well-in-formed gentlemen, to set an example of social propriety to their flocks. It was an opinion formerly prevalent in England, and still entertained, I believe, by many, that the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland are an inferior order of men, and hardly admissible into the conventional category of gentlemen. I know not what may have been their condition and quality formerly, but at present such a character is totally inapplicable to them. * * * At any rate, as far as I could learn, they possess, as a body, those higher qualities of character and conduct for which gentility and polish can be no substitute, and that pure life and conversation which, by adding example to precept, lends to their teachings that force and vitality which can alone render them effectual."
Now, if the College of Maynooth were this vile and pernicious institution which it is represented to be, it necessarily follows that the clergy who receive their education in it must partake of its character: if the College be bad, the priests taught by it must also be bad. What is the description given by an enlightened Scotch gentleman of the Catholic priests of Ireland? Here is the result of his observation and inquiry; for he states that he sought for information from all quarters:—
"I heard but one report of the priests; and that was that their character and conduct were uniformly excellent and exemplary. In an earlier stage of my journey I have made a similar statement; and I now repeat it as the result of all I saw and heard in Ireland. I do not believe that a more favourable report could be made by an impartial observer of the character and conduct of the Protestant clergy of England or Scotland; and no one, I believe, will think of denying this claim as a body to moral and social excellence."
May I not respectfully ask the House, whether those statements in favour of Maynooth, made, too, by one whose testimony is devoid of bias in favour of Catholics and Catholic institutions, do not more than counterbalance the wild and wanton calumnies which have been circulated against it by heated fanatics or honest dupes, as well as by interested hypocrites? Another allegation urged against Maynooth was, that the Catholic clergy generally were the enemies of education,

1931
and the friends and promoters of intellectual darkness. In support of this grave accusation, Mr. Macaulay was triumphantly quoted on the Motion to read this Bill a first time. I think I am in a position to prove that this allegation is also the result of a heated imagination, or of gross ignorance or prejudice on the part of those who make it. That the charge is particularly absurd, so far as the Irish clergy are regarded, has been rather abundantly disproved by the facts stated in the debate on the system of national education in Ireland, which took place two nights since, as well as by those repeated this very day by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin. What is the main fact with respect to that system in Ireland? This—that there are no less than 3,000 of the non-vested schools of that country partly or wholly founded by Catholic priests, with the aid of their congregations; and that the Catholic priests are their active and zealous patrons and promoters. I can state, from my own personal knowledge, that I know many instances where those calumniated priests—these Maynooth-reared priests—these enemies of education—these lovers of intellectual darkness—have reduced themselves to a position of extreme embarrassment in their efforts to establish and sustain, not one school, but two schools, three schools, and sometimes four schools in their parishes, according to their extent and the educational requirements of their inhabitants. The right hon. and learned Gentleman now complains that those 3,000 schools are in the hands of Ultramontane priests, who can enforce their dangerous doctrines upon their pupils. I ask that right hon. and learned Gentleman—I ask the hon. Member for North Warwickshire—I ask the opponents of Maynooth, what was the declaration of Monday night last? Was it not distinctly and unequivocally asserted, when that insidious attempt was attempted to be vindicated, which attempt, if successful, would have undermined and eventually destroyed one of the noblest institutions of the country, that there was not the remotest intention of touching or interfering with those 3,000 schools—that they were to be left, as they then were, in the hands of the Catholic clergy. Now, I assert that, if the teaching of Maynooth be what it is described by those hon. Gentlemen to be, and if its influence on the clergy be so pernicious as we are told by them it is, these gentlemen
1932
have grossly deserted their duty, in not, on that occasion, having demanded that those 3,000 schools, with their 400,000 children, should be torn from the grasp and freed from the control of such dangerous teachers who promulgated such detestable doctrines. But then the state of the Catholic clergy abroad was urged as a reason why we should deprive the clergy at home of the means of education. I hold in my hand a work which, written by a practical observer, as well as by an author of high repute, in my judgment is entitled to as much credit as Mr. Macaulay—I allude to Mr. Laing, and to his work, Notes of a Traveller. My first quotation is rather curious, as it points out to hon. Gentlemen in which Church the drones are to be found.
"The sleek, fat, narrow-minded, wealthy drone is now to be sought for on the episcopal bench, or on the prebendal stall of the Lutheran or Anglican churches; the well-off, comfortable parish minister, yeoman-like in mind, intelligence, and social position, in the manse and glebe of the Calvinistic Church. The poverty-stricken, intellectual recluse, never seen abroad but on his way to and from his studies or Church duties, living nobody knows how, but all know in the poorest manner, upon a wretched pittance in his obscure abode —and this is the Popish Priest of the 19th century—had all the advantage of position with the multitude for giving effect to his teaching."
Mr. Laing thus describes the Catholic clergy as they really existed abroad; and his language is just as applicable to the Catholic clergy at home. This description I particularly commend to the attention of hon. Gentlemen from Scotland—
"Our clergy, especially in Scotland, had a very erroneous impression of the Popish clergy. In our country churches we often hear them prayed for as men wallowing in luxury and sunk in gross ignorance. This is somewhat injudicious as well as uncharitable; for when the youth of their congregations, who, in this travelling age, must often come in contact abroad with the Catholic clergy so described, find them in learning, liberal views, and genuine piety, according to their own doctrines, so very different from the description and the describers, there will unavoidably arise comparisons, in the minds especially of females and young susceptible persons, by no means edifying or flattering to their clerical teachers at home."
We have been told the clergy on the Continent are the arch enemies of education, that their object is to cast a kind of intellectual pall over the human mind; and Rome and Spain are quoted as fearful instances of this fearful policy. Now, Mr. Laing, whose prejudices may be judged of by his constant use of the term "popish,"

1933
makes this wost important statement, as the result of his own observation—of what he himself saw in the countries which he mentions —
"In Catholic Germany, in France, Italy, and even Spain, the education of the common people in reading, writing, arithmetic, music, manners and morals is at least as generally diffused am as faithfully promoted by the clerical body as in Scotland. It is by their own advance, and not by keeping back the advance of the people, that the popish priesthood of the present day seek to keep ahead of the intellectual progress of the community in Catholic lands; and they might, perhaps retort on our Presbyterian clergy, and ask if they too, are in their countries at the head of the intellectual movement of the age? Education is in reality, not only not repressed, but is encouraged by the Popish Church, and is a weighty instrument in its hands, and ably used. In every street in Rome, for instance, there are at short distances public primary schools for the education of the children of the lower and middle classes in the neighbourhood. Rome, with a population of 158;678 souls, has 372 public primary schools with 482 teachers, and 14,099 children attending them. Has Edinburgh so many public schools for the instruction of those classes? I doubt it. Berlin, with a population about double that of Rome, has only 264 schools. Rome has also her University, with an average attendance of 660 students; and the Papal States, with a population of 2,500,000, contain seven Universities. Prussia, with a population of 14,000,000 has but seven."
I hold, Sir, I am justified in thinking that these extracts, written by no friendly pen, are a sufficient answer to that noisesome flood of calumny which has been poured out upon the Catholic clergy—not, of course, in this House, for it would be unparliamentary to say so. It has been argued that the grant to Maynooth should be withdrawn from it, because it has failed in its object. But in what way has it failed? Has it failed in producing an energetic working clergy? If the Catholic clergy of Ireland were more of the fine gentleman class, they might be unsuited to their position, their duties, and their flocks; but they are eminently a working clergy, admirably suited for their duties, and well qualified in every respect to deal with the necessities, the sufferings, and the miseries of the people among whom they are placed. They are ever ready for any calls which may be made upon them by the poorest and most miserable of their congregation. Night and day they are at their work, visiting the sick at all hours, at night as well as in the day, and at any distance. In the dead of night, he was willing to breast the lonely mountain side, to visit—not the wealthy invalid, who might leave in his will some memorial of
1934
his gratitude—but the miserable cottier in his squalid cabin. And in the crowded city he might be found hurrying along, when all others were sunk in slumber, to the filthy lane, ascending the creaking stair, and entering the garret poisoned with its deadly atmosphere of poverty and disease, and there not only administering the consolations of religion to the dying Catholic, but freely giving the last shilling in his pocket to purchase food or fuel for the comfort of his afflicted fellow-creature. I know it to my personal knowledge—for my brother, now a Catholic chaplain in the hospital at Scutari, was previously a curate in one of the poorest and most densely populated parishes of Cork—that the Catholic priest has rarely a shilling which he can call his own, and this in consequence of the incessant appeals to his charitable feelings by the scenes of distress which he hourly witnesses, as well from his efforts to promote the education of his flock, or in some other way improve their condition. And these are the clergy whom certain, hon. Members seek to brand by the insulting penal Bill now before the House. But I ask the hon. Members whose names are on, the back of this Bill, do they believe that those who vote with them believe with them? Do they not know the very contrary? I confidently ask them, do they believe that there are 100 Members of this House who are really in earnest in their opposition to Maynooth? I solemnly protest my belief that there are not fifty. Catholic Members have been charged with, attempting to prevent divisions on this subject; but are Protestant Members eager for a division? Why, I myself have frequently heard Protestant Members express the most anxious desire that the question should not come on at all, and privately advise Catholic Members to try to "speak it out." Catholic Members dread neither division nor discussion; but the vast majority of the Protestant Members of this House are anxious to avoid the discussion altogether, not only on grounds which are honourable to their good feeling, but from motives of sound policy. Who were the originators of this grant? This grant was originally proposed by a Protestant statesman, the Minister and representative of a Protestant King, and sanctioned by a Protestant Parliament. It was further increased and further sanctioned by Protestant Parliaments under Protestant Kings. It had been recommended and supported by the

1935
wisest and most sagacious statesmen this country has ever seen; and it was ultimately proposed and passed in its present form by one of the greatest statesmen of modern times, who, whatever may be the opinion entertained of him by those who seceded from him, or who were his political or personal opponents, will be long remembered with gratitude by the masses of the nation, as their friend and benefactor. And yet Sir Robert Peel was a sincere and conscientious man, and as much devoted to the welfare of his own Church, as ever the hon. Member for North Warwickshire himself. Thus this grant has culminated to its present point under the sanction of a Protestant Minister, a Protestant Parliament, and a Protestant Queen; and yet we are told that its maintenance is a national sin, and that the nation must wash itself free from the stain of its guilt by adopting this Bill, which in so many words brands the Church and the religion of Her Majesty's Catholic subjects with ignominy and shame. There is not a statesman at either side of the House who would think of proposing its abolition; nor will there be any party who will venture to make that abolition a part of their policy. In fact, they dare not—not for want of personal courage, for there is sufficient of that, even to the doing of wrong; but because the policy which it would enunciate, the passions which it would excite, the consequences which it would provoke. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire, who had no higher ambition than to serve his God and promote the cause of charity, might safely attempt to withdraw the grant and put down the college; but then the hon. Member would never be a Prime Minister, and would probably never rise even to the dignity of a whipper-in. Perhaps his is the loftier and purer ambition, and he can afford, therefore, to endeavour to give effect to his extreme opinions; but no man who aspires to sit in a prominent position on the Treasury bench would ever be so ill advised as to stand up in this House and propose or support such a Bill as we are now asked to read a second time today. When Sir Robert Peel proposed his plan in 1845, Lord Sandon and other leading men treated it as a matter of restitution, not of generosity or liberality. And what else was it but a small instalment of the long-standing debt of justice due to the Catholics of Ireland? Attempt to disguise it as some people may, it
1936
is not to be disputed that the revenues, the estates, the endowments—in a word, the property of the ancient Catholic Church of Ireland was torn from it by the rude hand of violence, and given over to a rival and a hostile Church. If this be not the fact, what mean those venerable but beautiful ruins of once-glorious convents and abbeys and churches which meet the eye so frequently amidst the most lovely spots in Ireland?—What mean those grand old cathedrals which are converted to purposes other than those for which they were erected and endowed? I do not however desire to rip up the sad story of the past, wishing rather that bygones should be bygones; but I do assert that, as a matter of plain and ordinary justice, the Catholics of Ireland have a right to far more than this paltry grant which it is now proposed to snatch from them, and on grounds which involve the grossest calumnies. It has been said that this is not the "right time" for a Bill of this kind; and a truer word was never uttered. Never was there a time less fitted for a measure of insult and oppression to the Catholics; for Catholic blood has been spilled like water in the cause of England. Where would you have been at this moment were it not for Catholic France and Catholic Sardinia?—where but for the wild chivalry of Connemara, of Tipperary, and of Kerry? On such an occasion as this I may call to your mind how great a share of the glory earned by the British army is due to the fiery courage and boundless devotion of the Irish Catholic soldiers. These brave men, who fought in the battle and endured in the trench, were taught by priests educated in Maynooth; and as an evidence of the teaching which they had received, and of the real character of those who had trained them, I will ask the permission of the House to read a few extracts to show what manner of men those Irish soldiers really are. I do not seek to show you what they were when they dashed up the hill at Alma in the face of a withering fire and a resolute foe; I do not seek to show you what they were when, at Inkerman, fighting under a gallant general (Sir De Lacy Evans) who is an honour to this Assembly, they exhausted the strength and baffled the fiercest efforts of a desperate enemy; I do not seek to show you what they were as they rushed to a certain death in the charge of Balaklava, or in the assaults of the 18th of June and the 8th of September; I do not seek to show you the Irish soldier in the fury of

1937
conflict, with arras in his grasp, his veins throbbing with fire, and every muscle of his strong frame quivering with the sublime excitement of a mortal struggle of brave men against brave men—all this has been already told by William Russell, the Times' Correspondent and the historian of the war, in language which will live for ever;—but I do wish to show you how the Irish Catholic soldier—the Popish soldier—taught and trained by the calumniated priest—could face death or the hospital pallet, with all his energies prostrated, and his shattered frame wrung by unutterable tortures. The book to which I allude is entitled Eastern Hospitals and English Nurses, written, as the writer herself states, by a Protestant, one of the Lady Nurses, who formed one of the noble band under Miss Nightingale, whose motives and whose services merit the homage of all who can appreciate and reverence the purest benevolence and the most devoted courage. [The hon. and learned Member then read several passages from the work descriptive of the fortitude and devotion of many of the sick and wounded soldiers who were brought to the hospitals.] I ask the House, are those men to be branded as idolaters, and is that religion from which they caught the inspiration which thus sustained them in their dying moments to be stigmatised in the foul manner which they have heard? I have exhibited the Catholic soldier under the most trying circumstances in which the human being and the Christian can be placed, and I shall now quote an extract or two as a matter of justice to those whose services and whose heroic devotion have been hitherto without a public recognition—I allude to the Sisters of Mercy. Now the Sisters of Mercy of the Irish convents—of Dublin, Cork, Kinsale, and other districts—were received and professed by bishops educated at Maynooth, were preached to and confessed by chaplains also educated at Maynooth; and I conceive that a brief record of their services is apposite and germane to the occasion, when an attack is made not only upon Maynooth, but upon the Catholic Church and all its institutions. I have been informed, by an hon. Friend near me, that a letter has been recently received from Miss Nightingale, in which she refers in the most generous terms to the invaluable aid which she received from the Sisters, and without which it would have been absolutely impossible for her to have accomplished the gigantic work which
1938
she had undertaken. [The hon. and learned Member then read another passage, pointing out the exertions and assiduity of the Sisters of Mercy during the campaign.] Well has it been said that this is not a time for such an attack against the religion of Roman Catholics, as is now attempted through the College of Maynooth. No public recognition of the services of the nuns who went out to the East has as yet been made in this or in the other House of Parliament, either by private Members or responsible Ministers; but though they require no acknowledgment of those services—though they would shrink with horror from the expression of public gratitude—Catholic Members have a right to boast of their labours and their services, and to refer to them in answer to the foul calumnies on which the advocates of this Bill rest their arguments in its favour. It was said, even this day, that the doctrines and worship of the Catholic Church were idolatrous, and therefore that it was a national sin to maintain an institution which trained priests to that worship, and for the propagation of those doctrines; but I will show that the doctrines taught by the Catholic Church—by the Maynooth priest to the Catholic child, whether in the remote mountain parish or in the thronged city—are no more idolatrous than those which Luther, the great Protestant Reformer, as Protestants describe him, himself professed and taught. The constant charge against Catholics by those who will not give themselves the trouble to learn the real truth, or who affect an ignorance of it, is, that they give every honour to the Saints, and especially to the Blessed Virgin, and altogether overlook the great Author and Father of all. Now the teaching of the Catholic Catechism, 100,000 copies of which are annually circulated in Ireland, was distinct and clear upon this alleged adoration of the Saints. It is as follows:—
"Are we forbidden to honour the saints?—No; if we only honour them as God's special friends and faithful servants, and if we do not give them supreme or divine honour, which belongs to God alone.
"How do Catholics distinguish between the honour they give to God and the honour they give to the saints, when they pray to God and the saints?—Of God alone they beg grace and mercy, and of the saints they only ask the assistance of their prayers.—Tobius xii. 12."
Another allegation against Catholics was that they adore the crucifix, and prayed to images, proving, in fact, that the Church

1939
taught and that its followers practised idolatry. Here is what the Church teaches as her doctrine, and teaches on the authority of the Sacred Scriptures—
"May we then pray to the crucifix, or to images or relics of the saints?—By no means, for they have neither life nor sense nor power to hear or help us.
"Why, then, do we pray before the crucifix, and before the images and relics of the saints?—Because they enliven our devotion by exciting pious affections and desires, and by reminding us of Christ and his saints; they also encourage us to imitate their virtues and good works.—Exod. xxv. 18; John iii. 14."
This simple, but comprehensive exposition of Catholic doctrine, the doctrine of Maynooth, the doctrine of the clergy, the doctrine of the people, is, I venture to think, a complete answer to the mis-statements which have been made on this subject by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and his Friends. I say, upon the very catechism, which is put into the hand of every Catholic child in Ireland, the Catholics are entitled to an acquittal from the foul imputation of idolatry. The House will, I trust, pardon me if I refer to one who, with Protestants ought to be a high authority upon matters of doctrine—Martin Luther, who, whatever the opinions held with respect to his conduct by different people, all must admit to be a man of great power and vigour of mind. It will be clear from the following extracts that if the Irish Catholic who has received his religious training from a Maynooth priest, is an idolater, so was Martin Luther, and that long subsequently to the so-called Reformation—[The hon. and learned Member then read some passages from Luther's Sermons, "On the use of Holy Images."] Lastly, there is purgatory, another constant subject of ridicule and attack; and thus Martin Luther declares his unhesitating belief—
"As to what relates to purgatory, I do not fear to say that we must believe it with a firm and resolute faith; for I am sure and certain that the poor souls in purgatory suffer inexpressible torture, and that we can assist them by prayer, by fasting, by alms-deeds, or by some other good work."
By the bye, it was once wittily remarked by an Irish defender of the doctrine of purgatory, in answer to a furious attack upon it, "that it was an excellent thing to believe in, for one might go further and fare worse." I have shown, by the comparison of the Catholic Catechism with the writings of the author of the Protes-
1940
tant Reformation, that the very doctrines which Maynooth is sought to be condemned for holding, and Catholic priests for teaching, were held and defended by one whom Protestants should be the last to question. So much for Catholic doctrines; but I prefer to rest the defence of Maynooth, as a Catholic Institution upon the character and conduct of the Catholic people of Ireland, whose spiritual guides and instructors are, to a very great extent at least, priests who have been educated within its walls; and I boldly assert that in every relation in which a people can be regarded, they would stand the test of a comparison with any people of any nation on the earth. I call on the hon. Member for North Warwickshire to abandon his crusade against Maynooth; and, in return, I shall point out to him a wider, a nobler, and a more glorious field for his energies, much nearer home. I assure him he never can make anything of Maynooth; but there is splendid work cut out for him at his own door, by which work, if he will only undertake it, he may enrol himself in the ecclesiastical annals of his country. I hold in my hand a report of a meeting held on Monday last in London, at which a Resolution was moved by a noble Lord, who was called at the meeting Lord Robert Grosvenor, but whose name I cannot mention in this House. That Resolution was to this effect—
"That owing to the supineness of former times, and to the unparalleled increase of population in and around London, there remain, notwithstanding the successful efforts of the last twenty years, parishes and districts of from 12,000 to 30,000 souls under the nominal charge of one incumbent, the greater proportion of whom are being left to grow up in worse than heathen ignorance, and that in a city which is confessedly the wealthiest in the world, and which sends forth her missionaries to preach the Gospel in the farthest parts of the earth."
This is no Popish calumny, no cunning device of the enemies of the Protestant Church, but a solemn statement made by a Protestant nobleman, at a Protestant meeting, in the presence of Protestant Bishops, Protestant Clergy, and a Protestant public, of the deplorable spiritual darkness and destitution of whole masses of the population of the greatest Protestant city in the world. Am I not therefore justified in directing the hon. Gentleman and his Friends to that extended and almost boundless field for their benevolent exertions which lies at their own door, and to abandon, as idle their farcical and utterly ab-

1941
surd notions of ever inducing or compelling the Catholic people of Ireland to change their religion. You have failed hitherto most completely, and so you will fail to the end. Not long since the hon. Gentleman and his Friends deluged poor Ireland with a flood of "white chokers," in the hope of taking the faith of the people by storm; but the only result of this notable attempt at conversion was, that whenever these apostles of peace approached their presence was invariably followed by riot, tumult, and by that odious feeling of sectarian rancour which every true friend of Ireland ought resolutely to put under foot. These men, who had nothing to recommend them save brazen audacity, white chokers, and well-filled pockets, were a failure; and so would be all such stupid and ridiculous modes of "converting" the Catholics of Ireland. Perhaps one other little fact, which I take from The Times of last month, may convince hon. Members that they may most profitably limit their spiritual benevolence, at least for some time to come, to their own country, without troubling themselves about the benighted Irish, idolater. The paragraph I allude to stated that 700 Mormon emigrants had left Albany for the Salt Lake, of whom 437 were from Wales, and the remainder from England and Scotland. Was there one man from Ireland amongst that deluded multitude?—was there one Irishwoman? Now, I say, if the description of the Resolution adopted on Monday last could be applied to Ireland, and if it could be stated with truth that these 700 emigrants, or even half of them, had been furnished by Catholic Ireland, I could then understand if hon. Gentlemen were not content with tearing the paltry grant which Maynooth now receives, but would demand that its walls should be razed to the ground, and its professors scattered over the world. But none of these things could be said of Ireland; and therefore I say, let those who delight in attacking Maynooth, and through it the faith of a Catholic people, "take care how you throw stones, for your own houses are more brittle than glass." A word as to the probable result of this Motion, or rather of this crusade: I, for my own part, and I think I might say as much for many Catholic Gentlemen who hear me, look upon its probable triumph with the greatest possible calmness. If the hon. Member and his friends, and those who agree with them, and those who urge them on, persevere in the present course, let
1942
them do so; with them will rest the responsibility, and not with those who resist them. Resist them we certainly will, for we have no right or authority to do otherwise. Personally, I must say that my own convictions are not entirely in favour of the grant to Maynooth, for it is more or less a bulwark of the Established Church. I desire, in common with the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Miall), whose Motion I lately supported, to see what he terms the "impartial disendowment" of all creeds, and the universal triumph of religious equality throughout the country. To accomplish this great blessing, the Catholics of Ireland would only too gladly fling up the miserable stipend which is now sought to be torn from them. But, at present, the Catholics of Ireland have to support an alien establishment, in addition to their own Church and their own educational and charitable institutions; and the burdens which thus press upon them are fully as much as it is possible for them to bear. Whether it may be in their power to come to some arrangement in six or ten years hence, I cannot venture to say; but I distinctly assert that they cannot, without the most serious inconvenience, in any way add to the burdens which, whether voluntarily or compulsorily, they now endure. Still, let not the hon. Members who support this Bill suppose that if this Bill be carried, Maynooth would therefore fall. Let this grant be torn from it, and there is not an Irish Catholic with a shilling in his pocket who would not give a portion of that shilling to maintain this College. But in what spirit would he give it? He would not grudge the money which he thus contributed towards the institution, so far as that institution was regarded; but he would curse the bigotry and fanaticism by which the wrong was inflicted and the sacrifice was rendered necessary. Surely enough has been already done to irritate the Catholics of Ireland; let something now be done to conciliate them. They merit some return, other than insult and calumny, for their devotion in the late war. They rushed to your standard in the hour of need, they fought your battles, they bled, and they endured in your cause; why, then, constantly insult and exasperate the people without whom you know you cannot do? I tell you it is idle for you to think of inducing the Irish Catholics to abandon, their religion. Such a vain hope may, indeed, be kept alive in the minds of dyspeptic old maids and superannuated

1943
dowagers by the base acts of clerical hypocrisy and humbug; but it is a farce and a delusion, and the sleek gentlemen who profit by all this unchristian excitement laugh in their sleeves as they chink in their pockets the gold of their credulous dupes. You were obliged to admit, a few nights since, that even with the children of Catholic parents you did not succeed; for that, in spite of landlord influence, and food influence, and money influence, and all other influences combined, the attendance of Catholic children at the Church schools had fallen off from 46,000 in 1848 to 23,000 in 1854. Still, in spite of these facts, hon. Gentlemen may persevere, if they feel so inclined. You may shake Maynooth, and even raze it to the ground—nay, you may overturn and demolish every altar which Catholic piety has raised up in Ireland; hut as long as the people of that country survive, so long will they retain in their hearts the undying spirit of the Catholic faith.
MR. DRUMMONDsaid, he entirely agreed with the hon. and learned Member who had last addressed them in connecting Maynooth with the existence of the Irish Established Church—they would stand or fall together. With respect to their standing or falling, however, he wished to make one observation which Gentlemen, particularly those who were opposed to both, had evidently lost sight of. They fancied that the Church was an enormous gainer by the temporal support it received from the State. The fact was, that in the union of Church and State it was the State only that gained, the Church was an incalculable loser. He considered that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) was entitled to the thanks of the House for bringing this Motion forward. It was well that the question should be considered at least once a year, and he should then hope that, in the course of time, there would be in the minds of Gentlemen on both sides of the House some power of discrimination between a Church and the abuses of a Church. He could not go with the hon. Gentleman in the terms he made use of respecting the Church of Rome; because he believed that, of all the sects we tolerated in this country, it was the only one which contained the whole truth, and because it was his firm conviction that they made use of the abuses in the Church of Rome only to carry on an attack against that Church itself. The party opposite were doing their
1944
best to decry the priesthood as idolatrous, and to denounce the sacrifice of the mass. He quoted the words, "sacrifice of the mass;" for they might take any other terms to express the reality of that action, and they might still call it idolatry. He (Mr. Drummond) said that it was the very essence of religion. And he would tell the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Spooner), moreover, that if he looked for religion except from a priesthood and sacraments he would look in vain for God upon earth. He might, indeed, have some vague notion of a "great First Cause, least understood;" but he knew nothing of a tangible religion or of God in the flesh. But when he came to consider what was taught by history, that the priesthood in all ages had been at the foundation of tyranny and oppression, he must say that it was not for Protestants merely to urge the agitation of that question, or rather its discussion in that House. The dominion of the priesthood was a usurpation against the common rights of mankind. It was not a question between Protestants and Roman Catholics in any sense. Wherever a priesthood had dominated, there they had assuredly degraded mankind. It was all very well for hon. Gentlemen to talk of their orderly and peaceable conduct in Ireland. Let them go through the whole history of Europe as it was now, and who were they who, at that very moment, were carrying on the most outrageous instances of cruelty and persecution? The Roman Catholic priests everywhere. Who were the abettors of the present political tyranny in Naples? The Roman Catholic priesthood. ["No, no !"] Let the hon. Member who said "No," go there and see. How came it that it was the Roman Catholic priest who got about the poor-witted Emperor of Austria, as he lay on his sick bed, and made him vow to restore to the Church all the power which his wiser grandfather had taken away? In Bavaria the same thing was going on. How was it that they had succeeded in putting down liberty of all kinds in Baden? How was it that here, in every union, in every gaol, they were insinuating themselves for the sole purpose of creating disorder. He could not go the whole length of either party in this matter; but he said, that if they were determined to legislate for Great Britain and Ireland upon sectarian principles, they were not fit, and never could be fit, for their office. They must rise above sectarian jealousies; they must look at the

1945
existing state of things, and remember that they were ruling a mixed people. Honest men were as much bound to respect the prejudices of one sect as of another. But he went further. There was a text of the Bible which taught Christians that he only was a just and honest man who kept his promise to his own injury. Well, the State had pledged its word to the Irish people, before the Union, for the maintenance of this grant; and now they sought to break it. He would go as far as any one in exposing one immorality taught by the Romish priesthood. He did not ask anybody to take his opinion of that immorality. He appealed to every Catholic State whether it was Protestants who had invented the word "Jesuitical." Was it among Protestants that the sneer against persons who were accused of being Jesuitical had had its origin? No such thing. Every Roman Catholic State in Europe, and every Roman Catholic statesman had declared that it was impossible to keep the people in subjection if the doctrines of the Jesuits were permitted; and the followers of Loyola had been everywhere expelled, as the common nuisances of society. It was not true that they had been the promoters of the Scriptures. They were in one common organised mass of rebellion against the Word of God. They kept everybody from the Scriptures that they could. He wanted the Roman Catholic Gentlemen to tell his priest, that because he was a man he was superior to the priesthood, that God had given to man his Word, and that as man he had a right to have it. It was they alone who attempted to interfere with it. But the promoters of this Motion went upon a wrong ground. They were trying to fight out the battle in the schools, as they had done the other day, and they made these poor, wretched children, the cat's-paw of their antagonism. Of a certainty the Protestant Members were taking up wrong ground. They insisted on the reading of the Bible in the schools—a practice to which it was a point of conscience with the Roman Catholic parent to object. The reading of a chapter of the Bible was not teaching religion, especially as it was admitted that no attempt must be made to explain its contents; and, as a mere reading lesson was all that was intended, it was obvious that the History of Tom Thumb or of Jack the Giant Killer would do equally as well. But they insisted upon the Bible being read. Why? For no other reason than that they knew that,
1946
as a point of conscience, the Catholics objected to it. It was not because they wanted to teach anything from it. For what did they do now? The clergyman went to the school every Sunday morning and heard the children repeat a few verses out of the Greek Testament. There was no attempt to explain it; and they called that teaching religion. Now, in that way they tried to oppose the doctrines of the Roman Catholic priests. The proper way to fight them would be to double the grant to Maynooth, and make it a real and effectual school, and improve the system of education carried on there. It was to the shame of this country that our means of instruction were so poor and feeble. He must confess that he thought it would be better, now that the reason for transferring the priests from Douay to this country had ceased, to revert to the former plan. It would be far better to give a much larger sum to the Roman Catholics, and let them send their priests to Rome, or some place out of Ireland, where they would get a far better and more Christian education than that which they now received. The only useful education consisted in teaching men to think and reason for themselves. That, however, the Roman Catholic priests never inculcated. On the contrary, the thing set before them on Dr. Wiseman's recommendation as the perfection of the human mind was, that they should swear that black was white and white black if their priest ordered it. That was no calumny of his, but the distinct declaration of the recognised leader of the Roman Catholic clergy of this country. The legitimate mode of putting an end to this system was to increase the means of education. He had the pleasure of knowing many Roman Catholic priests, who regarded the doctrines of Liguori very much as he did; but it was perfectly fair to charge those doctrines upon the Church of Rome, because Liguori's work had been sanctioned by that Church, which had declared that the author never wrote a word deserving of censure. As to the opinions of Luther, to which reference had been made by the hon. and learned Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire), they carried no authority over Protestants. The House had been warned that the repeal of this grant would rouse the indignation of 600,000 of Irishmen. It was not to say, because there was danger in any given course, that that danger was under no circumstances to be faced. But it was foolhardiness to shut our eyes and declare that

1947
there was no danger. There was danger in the present proposal; and those hon. Gentlemen who were now candidates for the succession to the Treasury benches should remember, that after their vote that day they would stand pledged to the repeal of this grant.
MR. NEWDEGATEhad heard the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Drummond) with the attention which his natural and acquired abilities demanded. The hon. Member warned the House that the Roman Catholic priesthood was extending its tyrannical power over mankind throughout Europe, in all directions, and yet, with respect to Maynooth, where it was not denied that the very Ultramontane doctrines of the Church of Rome, which he denounced, were taught and inculcated, the hon. Gentleman told the House it would be better that Protestant England should continue responsible for this Institution and commit herself still more deeply to the dissemination of these doctrines which he had denounced, as subversive of freedom and of the principles of the constitution of this country. As a practical man, he (Mr. Newdegate) could not understand how it was possible that the hon. Gentleman considered it was his duty, after denouncing the extension of Ultramontane doctrines as a scandal and a danger, to recommend the House, though in other words, to "Double the grant, extend the doctrines of Maynooth, and thus extend the degradation of the human race." Such advice was repugnant to the ordinary sense of mankind. He would not follow the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Maguire) through all the wide and unconnected expanse of his speech; but he must deny that any one had ever heard him (Mr. Newdegate) say a Roman Catholic could not be a true Christian. His first tutor was a Roman Catholic, and, what was more, he was an honourable and excellent man. He had promised his parents not to attempt to convert him, and he kept his word. A more worthy man could not be found. He (Mr. Newdegate) knew that his tutor repudiated the doctrines of Liguori, as calculated to undermine the morals of mankind; but before he died, this old man must have been, owing to the recent Papal edicts respecting Liguori's works, forced to adopt them. Such was the tyranny enforced by spiritual authority on the Roman Catholics. He trusted that the House had not forgotten the remonstrance of the Hexham priests against the domination sought to be established by the Cardinal. How they had protested
1948
against having the canon law forced on them. The people could not be expected to forget what had been done by liberal and enlightened Roman Catholics, by Lord Beaumont, and others. How they had warned us, that under the documents and authority which constituted the aggression of 1851, the power of the Roman Catholic Church was applied to an extent inconsistent with the liberty of the subject and the rights of the Sovereign in this county. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Maguire) admitted that in seeking to repeal the grant Protestants were doing the Catholic laity a service, and then added, "but he had no authority except to. oppose the repeal." Did not that mean that the hon. and learned Gentleman, though in that House the mouthpiece of the Roman Catholic priests, entertained the same feelings with respect to Roman Catholic ecclesiastical ambition as had been expressed by Lord Beaumont—felt, in fact, that a tyranny was fastened upon the laity, not so much by domestic efforts as by changes in the system at Rome. It could not be right for this Protestant country to lend its sanction to the inculcation of doctrines subversive of freedom and constitutional order, and felt to be tyrannical even by the Roman Catholics themselves. He was willing to give the Roman Catholic laity ample funds for educational purposes; but he refused to give a single shilling to their priesthood, who would apply any funds they received to the special purposes of their Church without regard to the national, and, he trusted, the loyal feelings of the more enlightened laity. He resisted this grant on the part of the Protestants of England, as it went towards the inculcation of doctrines subversive of civil and religious liberty. The other evening, the Government refused to sanction a Resolution to relieve the Church of Ireland from being practically and conscientiously disqualified from participating in the national grant for educational purposes, and the Government did this on the ground that they would prevent proselytising on the part of Protestants. The House refused in a specific manner to give a shilling of the public money to any school where instruction in the Bible, at school hours, was given, in Ireland, whether there were any Roman Catholic children in the school or not. And now certain hon. Members had the face to turn round and expect his side of the House to agree to a grant of £30,000 for the instruction of the Roman Catholic priest-

1949
whose notorious function and mission is proselytism. The Government with their eyes open, supported the continuance of this £30,000 grant, to forward Roman Catholic proselytising purposes, and yet refused a shilling to schools where the Bible was read and taught in Ireland, lest they should countenance Protestant proselytism! Was not that favouring Roman Catholicism and discouraging Protestantism? If anything could seal the doom of this grant, it was the Vote the House came to the other night in reference to schools where the Bible was taught. The hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond) asserted in his history of the grant that it was the result of a compact with Ireland at the time of the Union. Now, that was incorrect, as evidence in the library, accessible to every hon. Member, would prove. There was no compact—the trustees of Maynooth had no title to the grant, save under the Act of 1845. There had been a limited claim or implied right for twenty years after the Union, but that was only to some £7,000 or 8,000 a year, and terminated in the year specified by the Act of Union itself. The right to that grant had ceased in the year 1820. In 1845, Sir Robert Peel, in an unhappy hour, induced the House to increase the grant to Maynooth from the sum of £8,000 to the sum of £30,000. Sir Robert Peel distinctly at that time stated that there was no compact—that it was a free gift—and that therefore it would be gratefully accepted by the people of Ireland. In consequence of the increased grant, and the misappropriation of the building grant, 200 more priests were now educated at Maynooth than the Act allowed, whilst the population of Ireland had decreased to the extent of 1,200,000 since 1845. Those priests were sent to make proselytes in every part of the United Kingdom. He could not ignore the present condition of Maynooth—he remembered the aggression of 1851, and the perseverance in that aggression taught at Maynooth—he could not ignore the conduct of Rome throughout the world; it was because he could not set aside these facts, that with no wish to injure the Irish Catholics, he felt bound to support the Vote of his hon. Friend (Mr. Spooner). He considered the assertion, that if the grant were taken from Maynooth, the Church of Ireland would be destroyed, simply chimerical; for it was not likely, that the Protestant strength which would no longer tolerate the grant to Maynooth, should at once
1950
turn round upon its success in abolishing that grant and uproot the Protestant Church of Ireland, which was the faithful opponent of all that made Maynooth odious in the eyes of Protestants.
MR. BLANDsaid, that as a Protestant, who had every confidence in his Roman Catholic brethren around him, and representing a Roman Catholic constituency, he would tell the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Newdegate), if he was anxious for the destruction of the Irish Church, he should say that the Motion of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Spooner) was the first step towards that consummation. Although he did not regard that Church as the summum bonum, its destruction through the abolition of this grant would subject the Protestants of Ireland to an ordeal which he should deeply regret to witness. The repeal of this grant would place the Protestants of that country in the position of persecutors, and he should, therefore, vote against the second reading of the Bill. The supporters of this measure were divided into two parties. One party was the hon. Gentleman—the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner), and those who sat behind him. Their opposition to this grant, although partly resting on religious grounds, was not entirely free from the influence of a regard for the good things of the world. They were not prepared to give up the Church Establishment, which he warned them they were by this measure doing their best to disturb. Since the year 1829 a spirit of conciliation between the Catholics and Protestants of Ireland had sprung up. That spirit was now every day increasing in strength, and he should be sorry to see its growth rudely disturbed by such a measure as that now before the House. If the Bill was carried, the Catholics would instruct the people of Ireland as to the conveyance of Church property, and would teach them that it had once belonged to themselves. That property stood on a different footing to that belonging to the English Church. In England, priest and population changed their religion together; in Ireland the majority of the people did not change their religion, and the property was rudely and by violence forced from them. The foundation of the Church in Ireland was prescription and the love of peace. Where would be the latter element if this Bill were carried? It would open the floodgates of discord and disunion, and would revive animosities which it had taken fifty years

1951
to quell. That brought him to the question of the religious element. Was it a religion of Christ to stand in judgment on others. It was something like Pharisee and Gentile—"Thank God I am not like the Papist." Did the language that was used bear the impress of Him who was the spirit of peace. He replied, no; it was in the contrary spirit. The Roman Catholic priest could not educate the people out of the Church property he possessed, for the Church property had not only been taken from his Church, but laws had been passed to prevent the Church from holding property. Another class of supporters of this measure were those who were supporters of voluntaryism, and who said, "Let the Roman Catholics support their own ministers." He would beg to remind those Gentlemen that their position and that of the Roman Catholics of Ireland were very different. They had come out of the Church with wealth and power, and consequently, were able to, and did, support their own ministers. While by the withdrawal of their Church property, and by the operation of the penal laws, the Roman Catholics of Ireland had been placed in a very different position; and then, in a spirit of Christian charity, these Gentlemen said to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, "We will not give you the £30,000." This paltry sum was for the Roman Catholics of Ireland but 1¼d. to 1½d. each, while the revenues for religious and educational purposes possessed by the Established Church amounted to £1 15 s. per head. According to this calculation, two Protestants were equal to 700 Roman Catholics. Was there, then, anything unreasonable in asking the House to continue this grant? Did the hon. Member for North Warwickshire think that by measures such as this he could drive the Roman Catholic priests out of Ireland? When Cromwell failed to do that with the means he applied, such measures as those of the hon. Member would not succeed. He trusted the hon. Gentleman would not persevere in these attacks, but allow the people of England to remain in peace. Did he think that he could convert the people of Ireland to Protestantism by persecution? All history pointed to an opposite conclusion.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Sir, although aware that the House is anxious for a division, I must ask its indulgence while I state the reasons for the course which an imperative sense of duty calls upon me take upon this occasion. I think
1952
the time is now come when it is my duty to answer that appeal which was made to me on Monday evening, I think rather inopportunely, by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Labouchere), who on that occasion showed an avidity for Irish discussions which exceeded anything within my recollection. He seemed to me as though his courage rose as the prospect of opposition diminished, and when he found that there was not likely to be a serious debate on the question of Irish education, he said, "Now let us have a turn at Maynooth." He very directly appealed to myself and several other Gentlemen on this side of the House, and asked why, when my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) brought forward this question, we were not in our places? Sir, so far as I am myself concerned, I have no hesitation in stating frankly that I was intentionally absent upon that occasion. I was intentionally absent, because I think that no reflecting man can shut his eyes to the difficulties by which this question is surrounded, and I felt that whoever recorded his vote upon the Motion of my hon. Friend would, to a certain extent, stand pledged as either a supporter or an opponent of our present system with regard to Maynooth. From what I had heard of the views of my hon. Friend, I was very desirous to know what would be the nature of his proposition, what was the scope of his Bill, before I gave any vote which should pledge me to the pursuit of a particular course. I was also not without hopes that my hon. Friend might have framed his measure in such a spirit of fairness towards the Roman Catholics of Ireland as would have enabled me to give him my support. I find, however, that that has not been the case. My hon. Friend has brought forward a Bill which merely goes to repeal the Act of 1845, and thereby to reverse the policy towards Ireland which has for upwards of half a century been pursued by this country. There is no reservation, no exception, in the Bill of my hon. Friend, but that he will respect the existing interests of Maynooth so long as the education of the pupils now there may require it. Now, Sir, I think there is no denying that by the course proposed to be taken by my hon. Friend, and by the course taken on a former evening with regard to education in Ireland, questions of principle are raised involving conscientious opinions, and the time is now come when Members who are accustomed to take part in the pro-

1953
ceedings of this House are bound frankly and honestly to state what their views on the subject are. Acting upon that opinion, I, for one, must declare that I am not prepared to take any step which shall reverse the policy pursued by this country. That feeling I entertain no less with regard to the question raised the other night, than to that now before the House. I can be no party to any step which may injure or impair the system of education in Ireland. If I could improve it—if I could make it more equal—if I could embrace within it persons who do not now benefit by it, I would thankfully do so; but I will not do anything which would tend to contract or to injure it. As my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Newdegate) has referred to the subject, I hope that the House will allow me to make one brief allusion to it. My hon. Friend referred to a point which I have heard made the subject of speeches in this House and of declamation out of doors, and which I have seen broadly and constantly stated in the newspapers—namely, that the Scriptures are excluded from the system of education in Ireland. Now, Sir, whatever may be my views upon this subject, to the passage quoted from a former speech of mine by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Fortescue), I strictly and completely adhere—I am no advocate of any system of education which excludes the use of the Scriptures. I look upon it that the real question which has lately been at issue was, not whether you are to exclude the Scriptures, but whether or not you are to be at liberty to enforce their reading? To those who entertain the opinion that the Scriptures are excluded from the Irish system of education, I beg to refer them to the eleventh rule of the Board of Education in Ireland, in which it is stated as broadly and as distinctly as possible that the schools of Ireland are free to use and read the Scriptures. With regard to supporting the present system at Maynooth, I am bound to ask myself whether there is any consideration, either religious or political, which calls upon me, looking at the divided nature of our population—looking at the general interests of the empire—as a Member of this House and a Protestant Christian, to reverse the policy which has been pursued for half a century? I am debarred from taking the same line as my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner), who makes this a matter of principle, and says that it
1954
does violence to his conscience to be a party to this annual grant, because in the year 1845 I both spoke and voted in favour of the conciliatory course which was then taken by the Government of Sir Robert Peel. The reason which I urged for supporting the measure then proposed was, that I thought it most important that we should adopt a conciliatory policy towards the Roman Catholics of Ireland. I am, however, bound to say that circumstances have since occurred which must have caused great disappointment to those who advocated that policy of conciliation. Since that period we have had the Papal Aggression, as it is called, and the Synod of Thurles, and other events have occurred which have shown that the Roman Catholic body have, in some instances, not been so sensible as I anticipated they would have been, of the spirit which animated the Government of 1845. On the other hand, those events occurred many years ago, and I doubt whether there has ever been a period during which peace has more prevailed, and during which there has been a greater absence of all bitterness of feeling between Roman Catholics and Protestants than at the present moment, and for many years past. I, therefore, must say that this would be a most unfortunate moment for the adoption of any hostile policy like that of the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire. Let me make this appeal to my Friends on both sides of the House who take strong views upon this subject. I ask them, do they think it desirable that Ireland—of the population of which 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 are Roman Catholics—should be left without a priesthood? Not even the most zealous Protestant, knowing that the Roman Catholics are our fellow-Christians, can wish them to be without a priesthood. Is it better, then, that the Members of that priesthood should be trained in a foreign country, or under our own eyes, and in the land in which their sacred duties are to be performed? I must say that I think a dispassionate man can arrive at but one answer to this question. I am well aware that it has been stated, over and over again, that by making a grant for the training of the priesthood of a faith different from the national religion we are guilty of an anomaly. Why, Sir, the whole state of religious endowment in Ireland is an anomaly. In making that statement, however, let me

1955
say that I think the wise policy for this country is, to maintain things as they are. It was only by accident that I was, on a former evening, prevented from recording my vote against the Motion of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Miall), with regard to the Irish Church. Had it not been for an accident I should decidedly have recorded my vote against that proposition, because I am most decidedly opposed to any invasion of the rights of that Church. In fact, I thought the course taken by that hon. Gentleman was so extreme, that I hardly supposed his Motion could go to a serious division in this House. At the same time, and upon similar principles, I think that it would be most unwise to disturb the grant which was made to the Roman Catholics of Ireland for the purpose of training their priesthood at Maynooth. I hold these opinions distinctly as a Protestant Member of this House. I will not yield to my hon. Friend near me (Mr. Spooner), nor to any other man in this House, in the truth and sincerity of my Protestantism. I am neither a Roman Catholic nor semi-Roman Catholic; but the first and broadest duty which my Protestantism teaches me is that of toleration and charity to all. I therefore think that it would be most undesirable to excite any of those angry feelings which must be the inevitable result, if this Bill is carried into operation. It would be equally unwise to sever that connection of the State with the College of Maynooth which has now been sanctioned by every party in politics for upwards of a half a century. At the same time I must add, that it is impossible to regard the present state of this question without acknowledging that it is surrounded by great difficulty, and is attended by considerable anxiety. It is impossible to deny that the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner), are views entertained by a very large proportion of the people of this country. It is a most unfortunate fact—a fact which is disadvantageous to the Roman Catholics themselves, and to the whole country—that we should be subject to this periodical excitement. One of the motives which led the Government of Sir Robert Peel to propose the measure of 1845 was, that they might put an end to the annual discussions by which Parliament and the whole country were excited. Unfortunately that laudable object has not been attained. My hon. Friend near me
1956
(Mr. Spooner), actuated, I am sure, by feelings as honourable and conscientious as ever actuated any public man, still inflicts us upon these periodical excitements. On that ground, therefore, I would throw it out for the consideration of the House, and, above all, for that of Her Majesty's Ministers, whether it might not be possible to devise some mode by which an end may be put to these annual grants upon a footing which shall be consented to by the Roman Catholics, and shall preserve the spirit of what has been done. If we could arrive at such a solution it would be most desirable to do so. If there is no such possibility, I, for one, cannot consent to support the withdrawal of the grant, and must, undoubtedly, vote against the specific proposition now before the House.
MR. BOWYERsaid, he was anxious to make a few observations before the House came to a decision; and the more so, because on former occasions, when this question was discussed, he had always given a silent vote. His remarks should be directed to two points:—first, the sincerity of the supporters of the Bill; and secondly, the Report of the Maynooth Commission. In speaking of the sincerity of the supporters of the Bill he alluded, not to the hon. Member for North Warkwickshire (Mr. Spooner), nor to certain English and Scotch Members whose constituencies, probably, compelled them to vote in the way they did, but to the sincerity of the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside), and of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier). Those Gentlemen had spoken always strongly and vehemently in favour of the abolition of the grant to Maynooth; but what did those Gentlemen do when they were law Officers of the Crown? They sat in silence when the subject was discussed, as they would have had to do now if they had still been law Officers of the Crown. These hon. and learned Gentlemen were Members of a Government who supported Maynooth, yet they now opposed the grant. He would now pass to the Report of the Commission. What was the result of that Report? Every one of the charges made against Maynooth was negatived by the Report and evidence. Many Gentlemen said that the teaching at Maynooth encouraged Ultramontanism. He (Mr. Bowyer) thought that very few of those Gentlemen who talked about Ultramontanism knew

1957
what it was. But the result of the Commission of 1826 was precisely similar to the present. The college had not altered. His (Mr. Bowyer's) view might seem a peculiar one. He, in many respects, admired the College of Maynooth, and the system pursued there. In no college in the world would they find a finer body of young men than in that college. He saw there many symptoms of poverty; but as to Ultramontanism, he must say this, that much as he admired the College of Maynooth, the fault that he found in it was, that it is not Ultramontane. In Maynooth there was a system of education which certainly was not Ultramontane. He (Mr. Bowyer) said so three years ago, when he enjoyed the hospitality of the President of the College. The system of theology taught there was more likely to be popular in England than in Rome. The books used now in the College of Maynooth were the same precisely as were formerly in use, except one book, which was removed, in consequence, not of Ultramontanism, but because it was considered to teach views of marriage that were not orthodox. The hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond) had referred to Liguori. His (Mr. Bowyer's) answer was, that the works of Liguori were not textbooks at Maynooth. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Drummond) had also referred to the decrees of the Church of Rome on this subject, but that part of the question had been so fully dealt with by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire) in his able and eloquent speech that it was unnecessary for him (Mr. Bowyer) to press it further upon the attention of the House. He wished to say one word as to the voluntary principle, as the Catholic Members were urged to give up Maynooth on that principle. The Roman Catholic Church itself, in this country, was the greatest monument of the success of the voluntary system on record. Except in Maynooth, the Roman Catholic system was universally a voluntary one in this country; and at New York, only lately, the sum of £100,000 had been raised for a Roman Catholic cathedral for that city. Then, he said to the advocates of the voluntary system, only let them act fairly—let them give up the Established Church, and they (the Roman Catholics) would give up Maynooth. If they were to have a fair field and no favour, the Roman Catholics would be quite willing to give up May-
1958
nooth; but he was afraid that if it were so, the stronger party might be disposed to sacrifice Maynooth, but at the same time to retain the Established Church.
MR. HORSMANsaid, that on grounds of justice, policy, and good faith the Government deemed it incumbent upon them to support the Amendment. It had been Frequently stated, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, that from the circumstances under which the grant to Maynooth was originally made they felt bound in good faith to continue it. As a measure of policy, also, they deemed it necessary to adhere to the grant, because its continuance involved the peace and tranquillity of Ireland; and he therefore contended that, as an act of justice, the grant must be maintained because, while the Established Church possessed large revenues, and while the Presbyterian Church received Parliamentary grants, he thought it would be most unjust as well as most impolitic to deprive the great body of the Irish people of the scanty means now supplied by the State for the support of their religion. He cordially agreed with the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) in deprecating annual discussions upon a question of which, without meaning any disrespect to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner), he must say both sides of the House had long been weary. They had had discussions of this kind ad nauseam, and he saw no chance of avoiding them so long as the hon. Member for North Warwickshire persisted in a course which no doubt conscientious motives induced him to pursue; but if the right hon. Member for Droitwich could suggest any mode which would relieve them from such debates, he (Mr. Horsman) felt assured that both that House and Her Majesty's Government would feel greatly beholden to him. The late Sir Robert Peel had, with great foresight and sagacity, proposed that the grant to Maynooth should be transferred from the annual estimates to the Consolidated Fund. That proposal was agreed to, and he (Mr. Horsman) had hoped that that measure would have prevented contention about this grant, which, although miserable in amount, involved a principle of the utmost importance to the Roman Catholics of Ireland. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire had not shown that the continuance of the grant was attended with any practical evil, nor had he endeavoured to

1959
prove that any benefit would result from its discontinuance. The hon. Gentleman simply declared his opinion that the continuance of the grant was a great national sin. It did not appear, however, that many hon. Gentlemen on the opposite benches were disposed to support that view of the case. He would venture to ask the hon. Gentleman what his definition of "national sin" really was. For his part, he (Mr. Horsman) believed that it was a national duty on the part of the Legislature to promote the tranquillity and the morality of the Irish people by providing them with the means of religious instruction; and if the Legislature neglected that duty, in his opinion they would commit a great national sin. He was convinced that the moral, social, intellectual, and religious progress of the Irish people would be retarded if the Bill of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire were adopted, and he therefore felt bound to oppose it. The right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier) who brought forward the ingenuity of the lawyer to cloak the bitterness of the partisan, had not taken the same ground as the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, but he entered into a minute discussion of controversial points, and having stated that the works of certain authors who did not hold Ultramontane doctrines were formerly used in the College of Maynooth, while the writings of Ultramontanists had subsequently been introduced, he argued that a new state of things had arisen which justified the House in discontinuing the grant. The right hon. and learned Member also told the House that they ought, as a matter of conscience, to connect the Vote of that day with that of the other night. But what they stated the other night was this—that a large body came to ask the House to subsidise a minority, in order to wage war against their rivals. Now, intolerance was a costly luxury, and the spirit of proselytism had cost England millions of treasure and torrents of bloodshed. On that ground Protestant ascendancy was the motto of hon. Gentlemen opposite; religious equality and toleration was theirs. They granted to others liberty of conscience, liberty of faith, liberty of religious belief; but that which they could not give them, which was not theirs to give, was the right to interfere with the religious belief of their fellow-creatures. To that end they would
1960
not grant them licence nor pay the costs. Then hon. Gentlemen opposite did not say what would be the evil consequences of the measure. Would it make one Roman Catholic less at Maynooth to-morrow? Or did the hon. Member for North Warwickshire think there would be one Protestant more? Would the abolition of Maynooth strengthen the Established Church? Then, if so, what were the advantages promised? There was a strong antipathy to the religion of the Roman Catholic Church, which had existed since the Reformation in Ireland; but if that were all, that antipathy was not a ground upon which a Christian Legislature could interfere. He considered that the abolition of Maynooth, as a measure of policy, would be dangerous; and, as a measure of justice, a stain on our Church and our Legislature; and he hoped the House would join the Government in opposing the Bill.
CAPTAIN BELLEWsaid, he hoped that the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Verner) would allow him an opportunity of removing an impression arising out of his speech, which he (Captain Bellew) believed and trusted was a false one. The hon. Baronet had made a statement which led to the conclusion that the Archbishop of Tuam had imported Bibles from Dublin into his diocese, in order that they might be there burnt; he therefore called upon the hon. Baronet to explain.
SIR WILLIAM VERNERsaid, that he had already stated to the hon. and gallant Member that he had never made such a statement, and he would appeal to the House whether it was necessary he should make a further statement on the subject.
MR. SPOONER, in reply, said, that he founded his opposition to the grant on the ground that the books used at Maynooth inculcated gross immorality, and that the religion taught was contrary to the Word of God. He opposed the grant on principle. No one had been a firmer supporter of Catholic emancipation, so far as giving Roman Catholics civil rights was concerned, than he was. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Horsman) had talked of toleration; but it was not toleration to compel him to pay for the teaching of that which he believed to be contrary to the Word of God. [Cries of "Divide."] He had been listening patiently for five hours to the speeches of others on this Bill, but they would not

1961
give him five minutes. The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Bowyer) seemed to regard the teaching of Ultramontane doctrines in Maynooth as desirable; and in what, he would ask, did those doctrines consist? Why, they went the length of maintaining, not alone the spiritual but the temporal authority of the Pope over these realms; and as such were repugnant to the principles of which the hon. and learned Gentleman, as a loyal subject of Her Majesty, ought to be the advocate. An accusation had been made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Horsman) against his (Mr. Spooner's) right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier), to the effect that he had stated that he had no objection to the maintenance of the grant to Maynooth; but that was a complete misrepresentation of the sentiments of his right hon. and learned Friend, who had simply observed that he should not oppose any grant for the purpose of promoting good and true education in Ireland of such a character as he could conscientiously support. Such was not, however, the nature of the instruction which was administered in the College of Maynooth, and it was because it tended to make the priesthood of Ireland mischievous politicians, instead of loyal subjects—to render them the greatest obstacles to, instead of being the earnest upholders of, good government—that he desired to see all State encouragement to such instruction withdrawn. He had from the outset been the determined opponent of that encouragement. When Sir Robert Peel, in 1845, proposed the grant to Maynooth, he—foreseeing that its results would not be what that eminent statesman had predicted—had stood up in his place to gainsay the proposition. He had, therefore, he maintained, always been the consistent supporter of these views with respect to the grant to Maynooth which he sought to embody in the Bill before the House, and his right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington), for whose opinion he entertained the highest respect, had done him no more than justice in stating his belief that in takings the course which he had adopted he was influenced by no other than strictly conscientious motives. Sir Robert Peel's conduct upon the question, instead of showing foresight, displayed the greatest want of foresight, for he took away the great check and
1962
control over it—namely, that of being an annual Vote. He would ask the Government if Catholic priests had not been the greatest obstacles to good government? and even the noble Viscount (Viscount Palmerston) found himself crippled by the representatives of priests who sat below the gangway. They must arrest the progress of Popery before they could restore that equilibrium in the House which would enable the Government to carry on the affairs of the nation. The time would come when resistance to the grant would become a necessity. An hon. Gentleman, a Catholic, had stated that if the oath he had taken would control his conduct as a Member of that House, he would vacate his seat. If the noble Viscount disregarded the people of England and Scotland, and attempted to govern it through the Irish priests, he would find that, difficult as his position now was, it would become ten times more so. [Cries of "Divide, divide!"] He had been desirous of replying seriatim to the main objections which had been urged against his Bill in the course of the debate, but as it seemed to be the wish of the House that a division should at once be taken, he should conclude by appealing to the noble Viscount at the head of the Government, by supporting the Bill, to throw himself upon the Protestant feeling of the nation, which would support him against the necessity of yielding to the pressure which was put upon him by the representatives of the priests below the gangway, to the obstruction of many a useful measure, and which would preserve him from the indignity of being obliged to pander to their wishes in order to obtain their votes.
MR. BOWYER, in explanation, said, that he did not, as the hon. Member for North Warwickshire supposed, confound the temporal with the spiritual power; the two powers were separate, and distinct.
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes174; Noes 168: Majority 6.

List of the AYES.

Adderley, C. B.

Baird, J.

Agnew, Sir A.

Baldock, E. H.

Alcock, T.

Ball, E.

Anderson, Sir J.

Barrington, Visct.

Arbuthnott, hon. Gen.

Barrow, W. H.

Archdall, Capt. M.

Baxter, W. E.

Bailey, Sir J.

Bennet, P.

1963

Bentinck, G. W. P.

Irton, S.

Beresford, rt. hon. W.

Johnstone, J.

Bernard, Visct.

Jolliffe, H. H.

Blackburn, P.

Jones, Adm.

Blandford, Marquess of

Jones, D.

Bramley-Moore, J.

Kelly, Sir F.

Brocklehurst, J.

Kendall, N.

Buck, Col.

Kerrison, Sir E. C.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Burghley, Lord

King, J. K.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Kingscote, R. N. F.

Butler, C. S.

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Butt, G. M.

Knightley, R.

Cabbell, B. B.

Knox, hon. W. S.

Campbell, Sir A. I.

Langton, H. G.

Carnac, Sir J. R.

Lee, W.

Challis, Mr. Ald.

Lennox, Lord A. F.

Cheetham, J.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Child, S.

Lisburne, Earl of

Cole, hon. H. A.

Lockhart, W.

Coles, H. B.

Long, W.

Collier, R. P.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Cowan, C.

Lowther, Capt.

Craufurd, E. H. J.

Macartney, G.

Crossley, F.

Mackie, J.

Cubitt, Mr. Ald.

MacGregor, James

Davie, Sir H. R. F.

MacTaggart, Sir J.

Davies, J. L.

Maddock, Sir H.

Davison, R.

Matheson, Sir J.

Dod, J. W.

Maunsell, T. P.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Meux, Sir H.

Duncan, G.

Miall, E.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Miles, W.

Duncombe, hon. Col.

Milligan, R.

Duncombe, hon. W. E.

Mills, T.

Dundas, G.

Michell, W.

Dunlop, A. M.

Montgomery, Sir G.

Du Pre, C. G.

Morris, D.

East, Sir. J. B.

Mowbray, J. R.

Egerton, W. T.

Mundy, W.

Egerton, E. C.

Napier, rt. hon. J.

Ellice, E.

Napier, Sir C.

Ewart, W.

Neeld, J.

Farnham, E. B.

Newark, Visct.

Farrer, J.

Noel, hon. G. J.

Fergus, J.

North, Col.

Ferguson, J.

Ossulston, Lord

Fergusson, Sir J.

Pakenham, T. H.

Filmer, Sir E.

Palmer, R.

Floyer, J.

Parker, R. T.

Freestun, Col.

Pellatt, A.

Frewen, C. H.

Pigott, F.

Fuller, A. E.

Pilkington, J.

Gallway, Sir W. P.

Repton, G. W. J.

Gilpin, Col.

Robertson, P. F.

Goddard, A. L.

Rolt, P.

Gooch, Sir E. S.

Rust, J.

Graham, Lord M. W.

Sandars, G.

Greenall, G.

Sawle, C. B. G.

Grogan, E.

Seymour, W. D.

Guinness, R. S.

Shelley, Sir J. V.

Gurney, J. H.

Shirley, E. P.

Gwyn, H.

Sibthorp, Maj.

Hadfield, G.

Smith, W. M.

Hall, Gen.

Smith, A.

Hamilton, G. A.

Smollett, A.

Hamilton rt. hn. R. C. N.

Stafford, A.

Hardinge, hon. C. S.

Stanhope, J. B.

Hastie, A.

Stracey, Sir H. J.

Hastie, Archibald

Stewart, Sir M. R. S.

Hildyard, R. C.

Stuart, Capt.

Hotham, Lord

Sturt, H. G.

1964

Taylor, Col.

Whitmore, H.

Tempest, Lord A. V.

Wickham, H. W.

Thompson, G.

Woodd, B. T.

Tite, W.

Wyndham, Gen.

Trollope, rt. hon. Sir J.

Wynne, W. W. E.

Vance, J.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Vansittart, G. H.

Verner, Sir W.

TELLERS.

Walcott, Adm.

Spooner, R.

Welby, Sir G. E.

Newdegate, C. N.

List of the NOES.

Acton, J.

Greene, J.

Adair, Col.

Gregson, S.

Antrobus, E.

Grenfell, C. W.

Atherton, W.

Greville, Col. F.

Ball, J.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Baring, rt. hn. Sir F. T

Grey, R. W.

Bass, M. T.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Beamish, F. B.

Grosvenor, Earl

Bellew, T. A.

Hall, rt. hon. Sir B.

Bethell, Sir R.

Handcock, hon. Capt. H.

Biddulph, R. M.

Hankey, T.

Black, A.

Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.

Bland, L. H.

Heard, J. I.

Bond, J. W. M'G.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Bowyer, G.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Brady, J.

Heneage, G. F.

Bramston, T. W.

Higgins, Col. O.

Brockman, E. D.

Horsman, rt. hon. E.

Brotherton, J.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Bruce, Lord E.

Howard, Lord E.

Bruce, H. A.

Hughes, H. G.

Buckley, Gen.

Hutchins, E. J.

Burke, Sir T. J.

Ingham, H.

Byng, H. G. H. C.

Ingram, R.

Castlerosse, Visct.

Jackson, W.

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Johostone, Sir J.

Cecil, Lord R.

Kennedy, T.

Clinton, Lord R.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Cockburn, Sir A. J. E.

Langston, J. H.

Cocks, T. S.

Lemon, Sir C.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Lennox, Lord H. G.

Corbally, M. E.

Lewis, rt. hon. Sir G. C.

Cowper, rt. hon. W. F.

Littleton, hon. E. R.

Deasy, R.

Lowe, rt. hon. R.

Denison, J. E.

MacEvoy, E.

De Vere, S. E.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Devereux, J. T.

M'Cann, J.

Dillwyn, L. L.

M'Mahon, P.

Duff, G. S.

Magan, W. H.

Dungarvan, Visct.

Martin, P. W.

Dunne, M.

Massey, W. N.

Esmonde, J.

Meagher, T.

Ewart, J. C.

Moffatt, G.

Feilden, M. J.

Monok, Visct.

Fenwick, H.

Moncreiff, rt. hon. J.

Ferguson Col.

Monsell, rt. hon. W.

FitzGerald, Sir J.

Moore, G. H.

FitzGerald, J. D.

Mowatt, F.

Foley, J. H. H.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Forster, C.

North, F.

Forster, J.

Northcote, Sir S. H.

Fortescue, C. S.

O'Brien, P.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

O'Brien, Sir T.

Gifford, Earl of

O'Brien, J.

Glyn, G. C.

O'Connell, Capt

Goderich, Visct.

O'Flaherty, A.

Gower, hon. F. L.

Osborne, R.

Grace, O. D. J.

Owen, Sir J.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Pakington, rt. hn. Sir J.

1965

Palmer, Roundell

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Palmerston, Visct.

Steel, J.

Paxton, Sir J.

Strickland, Sir G.

Pechell, Sir G. B.

Strutt, rt. hon. E.

Peel, Sir R.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Peel, F.

Thornely, T.

Perry, Sir T. E.

Thornhill, W. P.

Philipps, J. H.

Tottenham, C.

Portman, hon. W. H. B.

Vane, Lord H.

Pritchard, J.

Vernon, G. E. H.

Raynham, Visct.

Vivian, H. H.

Reed, Maj. J. H.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Ricardo, S.

Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.

Ricardo, S.

Walter, J.

Ridley, G.

Watson, W. H.

Roebuck, J. A.

Wigram, L. T.

Russell, F, C. H.

Wilkinson, W. A.

Russell, F. W.

Willcox, B. M'G.

Sandon, Visct.

Williams, W.

Scholefield, W.

Wilson, J.

Scobell, Capt.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Scully, F.

Wrightson, W. B.

Shee, W.

Wyvill, M.

Shelburne, Earl of

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

TELLERS.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

Maguire, J. F.

Stanley, Lord

Herbert, H. A.

Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. BOWYERsaid, he should move that the debate be adjourned.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he hoped the House would come to an immediate decicision upon the second reading.
MR. H. HERBERTsaid, in the early part of the day, when the House was, comparatively speaking, empty, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire appealed to hon. Members not to discuss the question at any great length. Yielding to the wish of the hon. Member, and, as he believed, also to the wish of the House, he (Mr. Herbert) had, without making any remarks, moved that the Bill be read a second time that day three months. Notwithstanding the appeal of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, however, three of his Friends had spoken at great length in favour of the Bill, and the hon. Member himself made a long reply, in which he said very offensive things in bitterly assailing the faith of Roman Catholics. In these circumstances, he thought it not unreasonable that he should be afforded an opportunity of expressing his sentiments with regard to the Bill, and that the same opportunity should be extended to others. [The hon. MEMBER continued to speak till the hands of the clock pointed at a quarter to Six, when, according to the rules of the House, all proceedings on an opposed Motion are suspended.]
The House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock.