The Press. — London, England, 1854-07-08 00:00:00

JULY 8, 1854. house should unfortunately and unhappily sanction the establishment of private halls. Although lam ready to admit that the intermixture of a swell and unimportant portion of dissenters among the colleges, to whose rules they were subject, might be unobjectionable, I am not pre pared to establish congregations of dissenting young men in the centre of the university, or to encourage the props . . gation in Orford either of Protestant dissent on the one hand, or the inculcation of Roman Catholic opinions on the then" The noble lord concluded by briefly indicating the nature of the changes which he should propose when the bill came up to committee : "In the amendments I ;,;se,.)ie to submit, my principal object will be to Impose iu.tuer restrictions upon the arbitrary power of the commissiohers ; to provide further checks against mismanagement ; to give greater weight and influence than in some cases is given by the bill, or rather taken away by it, to the voice and opinions of the visitors of the several colleges ; and, above all, to provide that in your legislation you shall adhere—l will not say strictly to all the obligations and all the injunctions of the wills of founders—but that you shall most scrupulously and care fully guard against altering the disputation of the trust funds of the university and the fundamental statutes of the colleges by provisions that shall not be consistent with the main and principal designs of founders. (Hear, hear.) Subject to that limitation, I for one do not object to any amount of extension which the colleges and the university may give in order to render them more generally accept. able, to free them from obsolete and onerous obligations, to extend and increase, as they are daily, the range of study and the amount of instruction, and, if it be possible, to embrace within their walls and subject to their discipline a larger portion of the population. 1-/ear, hear, hear.) 1 earnestly hope that by the joint endeavours of this and the other house of Parliament, though involving a mis• chievous and dangerous principle which cannot be eradi cated, this bill may be so amended as to have much of the evils which it originally contained removed from it, and that many of the benefits originally contemplated may be confirmed and carried into effect in a manner more advan tageous than they would be by the bill in its present state. In the hope, and I will even say in the expectation and desire, of all your lordships and all the friends of the Church of England and the University, that, once settled, the question may be closed once and for all, that Parlia ment should not year after year be called upon to interfere with the constitution and internal management of the mai versity, and in the hope and expectation, and even desire, that the bill should pass in the course of this session, whatever may be my objections to the principle of it, I waive them so far, and concur in the motion for the second reading of the bill. (Hear.)" Viscount CANNING offered a few remarks by way of reply, and the bill was read a second time. METROPOLITAN CHURCHES. The second reading of the Church Building Act Amendment Bill was moved on Thursday in the Commons by Sir J. PAKINGTON. The purport of the measure he described to be briefly this—to give power to certain commissioners to pull down certain churches in the City, and rebuild them in the suburbs, the result being to make the superfluity of church accommodation in one place supply the lamentable deficiency existing in the other. Mr. R. PHILLIMORE expressed strong objections to the bill, which appeared to be proposed because the rich people having gone from the City to the suburbs the incumbents were desirous of following them. He insisted that it was not because the rich man chose to leave the City that the poor man's church should be taken away from him. One great consti tutional objection to this bill was that it proposed, fur the first time in the history of this country, to pull down and build up churches and to transfer church rates and tithes from one district to another, without the consent of the parishioners. The bill was, in his opinion, arbitrary and unjust, and shocking to public feeling, by its inevitable desecration of churchyards, and he moved as an amendment that it be read a second time that day three months. Mr. HADFIELD seconded the amendment. Sir J. PAKINGTON repelled the attack upon the clergy of the city of London. He contended that there was a great superfluity of churches in the City, arising from the diminution of the population, and this superfluity it was, in his opinion, most desirable to apply to places in which there was an acknow ledged deficiency of church accommodation. He cited various instances in which in modern times churches had been pulled down, and churchyards done away with, for the interests of health and commerce, as in the case of the St. Katharine Docks, and asked if it was not of infinitely greater importance that this should be done where the object was to supply an enormous amount of spiritual deetitution? In the course of a long debate which followed, Mr. S. HERBERT, on the part of the Government, supported the bill. On a division, however, the bill, winch had been brought forward at a day sitting of the house, was rejected by a majority of 143 votes to 59-84, THE REGIUM DONUM. In committee of supply on Thursday the vote of 38,7451. for the nonconformist ministers in Ireland was opposed by Mr. BRIGHT. The hon. member strongly condemned the grant as being, in the words Candlish, "the hush-money of the State," THE PRESS. which ought to be rejected by the Presbyterians of the north of Ireland, who could so well afford to sup port their own clergymen without the aid of this Reg ium dottum. As, however, he had no hope of de feating the grant, on which the subsistence of some hundred clergymen depended, he only sought to get an assurance that the vote should not be expansive, that it should not be increased, and that some definite period might be named when it should cease for ever. He wished to have a discussion upon the question, and a division upon its principle, and should, therefore, move to negative the increase of 3461. now proposed on the vote of last year. A protracted debate ensued, in which many partisans of the voluntary princisle joined in condemning the grant, and exhorting the Irish Presbyterians to a efuse alms from the State. L.,rd J. RUSSELL closed the discussion with a speech defending the vote. It bore, he said, the character of a contract, and the just expectations, and even the subsistence, of the Presbyterian clergy would be sacrificed if it were withheld. On a division the vote was carried by 119 votes to 02-87. MAYNOOTH. Under the provisions of the bill intituled the " Pub lic Revenue and Consolidated Fund Charges Bill " numerous classes of public expenditure, grants, sa laries, Sze., heretofore charged upon the Consolidated Fund, are to be removed and placed upon the annual votes, for the purpose of subjecting them to the scru tiny of Parliament every session. Nine years since, in 1845, a precisely contrary operation was carried into effect with regard to the Maynooth grant, which Sir R. Peel then succeeded, in spite of very strenuous opposition, in removing from the annual estimates and placing—comparatively out of sight or reach of the Legislature —upon the Consolidated Fund. This question having been opened by the introduction of the bill above named, Mr. Spooner gave notice of an amendment in the shape of an additional proviso, by which the Maynooth grant would be included among the items transferred back to the estimates. On Monday the bill came up to pass its final stage in the House of Commons. Before the time arrived when Mr. Spooner could bring forward his motion a preliminary discussion took place on the subject, ori ginating in an appeal made by Mr. Williams, the real author of the bill. He entreated Mr. Spooner not to press an amendment which would peril the safe pas sage of so excellent a measure. Lord J. RUSSELL, followed in a similar strain. He urged by way of argument that, as Sir R. Peel had effected the change in 1845 by means of a formal bill, it was wrong to reverse that decision by a mere sup plemental proviso, attached to a bill not immediately relating to the subject. By way of threat the noble lord added that, if the amendment were carried, Go vernment would abandon the bill. Mr. SPOONER declined to yield. There was no es pecial distinction between the Maynooth grant and many other charges which the bill dealt with and transferred to the estimates, although entitled under acts of Parliament to remain upon the Consolidated Fund. He believed that the change of 1815 was ac complished for the purpose of stifling public opinion, and that the grant itself was maintained against the Protestant feeling of the country. As to bringing in a bill upon the subject it was absurd, for he would be defeated by hon. members speaking against time until six o'clock on Wednesdays. Let the result be whatit might, he would press his motion to a division. If the bill were a valuable one, he would leave the responsibility of withdrawing it to the noble lord. The discussion was continuing, when, upon the suggestion of Mr. Brotherton, the SPEAKER interposed, and urged that it would be more convenient not to debate the question until the proposed amendments were regularly before the house. The subject accord ingly lay by while various new clauses were added, and Mr. V. Scuts had argued and divided more than once upon provisos relating to the judicial estab lishments of Ireland. Mr. SPOONER at last WHS enabled to bring forward his proposition. He abstained from arguing the question in its religious bearings, though in these his convic tions remained unchanged, but commenced by reply ing to the allegation that the Maynooth grant had assumed the character of a contract, and could, there fore, neither be discussed nor rescinded : " In the case of the grant to Maynooth there was nothing whatever in the grant of the nature of a contract, and the subject was not one which ought to be stifled, but, on the contrary, there should be an opportunity afforded annually of taking the sense of the house upon the subject. That the grant contained nothing like a stipulation must be evident. In the year 1845 Sir R. Peel said, that he had had communication with the leading ecclesiastical authorities of the Roman Catholic Church, but that no stipulation or contract had been made. Such was the positive assertion of Sir R. Peel, and there could be no doubt as to the correctness of it. The grant was originally made as a free gift of Parliament, and it was made for pur poses which had totally and entirely failed. One of the argu ments in favour of the grant had been, that the effect of it would be to conciliate the Roman Catholics ; but no such effect had been or ever could be produced, for no honest, 629 conscientious Roman Catholic ever could be conciliated if he acted upon his professions until he had obtained that which they were endeavouringall along and struggling every day to obtain—he meant supremacy instead of toleration. It was impossible that the grant could do any good, and he did not think it proper that a Protestant nation should be called upon to pay for the idolatry of others. (' Oh, oh r) Hon. members might cry ' Oh, oh !' but such was the case, and the country felt it to be the case. He would call upon the Governmeut'—upou all those who felt themselves to be the representatives of public opinion on that point, or those to whom the expenditure of the country was en- trusted—to place the grant to Maynooth on such a footing that Parliament should have the power of exercising a control, which vas especially the duty with which they were entrusted. If the principle had been recognised of taking from the Consolidated Fund sums which had been granted by act of Parliament, he would ask the house to take the grant to Maynooth out of the Consolidated • Fund and to place it in the estimates. He might be told that to do so would give rise to angry discussions ; but had the principle of paying the grant from the Consolidated Fund succeeded in preventing angry discussion? He was satisfied that the people of the country required that this subject should be fairly inquired into." Mr. NEWDEGATE seconded the motion :-- " He asked what special claim Maynooth had to exclusion when almost every other charge was placed upon the rad mates ? He wished to have some explanation, some reason for it, because if there was any one charge more than another which ought to be transferred from the Consolidated Fund it was this very Maynooth grant. (Hear, hear.) It was proposed by the late Sir H. Reel on the ground that the poverty of the students at Maynooth required it, but he had ascertained since the act passed that the plea of poverty was wholly without foundation. (Hear.) The whole parliamentary grant had been expended in mere carcase-building, and he presumed that the authorities at Maynooth expected another large vote in order to provide the interior fittings. What was the object of this misap propriation of the parliamentary grant? He believed that it was to enable the college to take 725 students, while Par liament only intended that 520 students should be received there. All these sacrifices of principle and of capital were made in order to conciliate Ireland. But was Ireland con ciliated? He would let 1848 and the outrages which preceded and followed it answer the question. Had it even conciliated the Roman Catholics here ? The abominable assumption of titles by Roman Catholic ecclesiastics was the reply. At that time the Roman Catholics rose like one man—(Oh, oh!)—to defy the law. If the Government in tended properly to govern Ireland, they should govern it in such a way that Irishmen should be on an equality with the rest of the kingdom. (Cheers from the Irish members.) Hon. members cheered when he spoke of equality. He was sorry indeed that the religion of Roman Catholics condemned Parliament to impose restraints upon them : it was not the fault of the Legislature, it was the fault of those to whom Roman Catholics gave blind allegiance. He was astonished that the noble lord the President of the Council (Lord J. Russell) should take the course he had upon this question, standing in opposition to the whole weight of public opinion. As to the plea of the necessity of finding a place for educating priests, he would point out to the house that it was said in Irish newspapers that 50,000/. had been subscribed for a Free Irish Roman Catholic University. He said to the Roman Catholics, why did not they build this university and send their priests there to be educated? By that means they would get rid of all these questions at once; they would then have no annual or other discussion." When Mr. Newdegate concluded there were evident expectations that some minister would speak, and in full anticipation of a prolonged debate a great nu►u ber of members, especially on the Oppos►tion side, left the house. No member of the Government, however, rose, and, when Mr. HEYWURTH and Mr. GARDNER had spoken a few words each, a division was called, and the Speaker turned his sand glass. Mr. BUTT attempted to frustrate the attempt to snatch a division, and was proceeding to speak, when he was interrupted by a shout from the Ministerial side of the house, accompanied by calls to order and appeals to the Speaker, who, however, decided that no rule of the house forbade Mr. Butt from going on with his speech. The Ministerialists and Irish members, nevertheless, insisted upon dividing at once, and, after some minutes' uproar, Mr. Butt was obliged to yield to mere clamour, and the division was taken. There appeared :—For Mr. Spooner's proviso, 90 ; against it, 106: so the amendment was lost by a majority of 16. The bill was then passed. IRISH CHURCH TEMPORALITIES. The adjourned debate on Mr. Sergeant SHEZ' proposed bill for transferring some 360,0001. scraped together out of various ecclesiastical revenuesin land to the Roman Catholic priests in that country was resumed on Wednesday in the House of Com mons. Sir J. YOUNG regretted that a question on which so many discussions had taken place and such large concessions had been made, with a view to its final settlement in former years, should be once more re opened for disputation in that house. Characterising the renewed agitation of the subject as at once fruit. less and mischievous, he examined the plan embo died in the present measure, and pronounced it im practicable, and vicious in principle. It was framed upon an assumed condition of things as related to the Irish Church which had long since passed away ; and dealt with revenues either not in existence or ab-