The Press.
London, England, 1855-05-05 00:00:00

MAYNOOTH GRANT.

On Tuesday Mr. Spooner once more brought for-
ward his motion for a committee to inquire int.) this
gnait with a view to its abolition. There was a
perfect deluge of petitions in the house on the
subject, and when Mr. Spooner rose to present some
preliminary petitions of his own, a whole crowd of
members, fancying they were losing their chance,
rushed forward to the table—►n some instances
pushing their petitions on the table—without any
regard to the forms of the house. Alter the Speaker
had restored order, and the petitions were presented
in due course,

Mr. SPOONER, anticipating the objections that the
present time was an ill judged one—politically—for
such a motion, reprobated dealing with the question
on such grounds. It the grant was a sin it was
always the light time to deal with sin for its abate-
ment. As fur our allies, the French viewed the
papal supremacy with as much distrust as we did.
He then combated the notion that the grant was in
auy way a compact with the Irish nation. Next came
the report of the commission appointed to inquire
into the state of the college. Mr. Spooner showed
that the notes of the evidence, sent to the witnesses
for revisal, had been sent to Rome—that they had
been altered and cooked before publication--that some
evidence was suppressed—that illegal titles were
formally given to Roman Catholic prelates without
the knowledge of the commission ; and lie declared
that he had seen himself some of the proof-sheets of
the evidence in which there were material al.erations.
At the bottom of all this was Mr. More O'Ferral,
the Roman Catholic commissioner, who had commu-
nicated the evidence to Rome through Dr. Cullen.
Mr. Spooner then proceeded to quote from Liguori
and parts of the evidence, to show that the Roman
Catholic doctrines still virtually went to authorise
papal interference in temporal matters, that a wrong
vote at an election might be called a deadly sin,
and that its doctrines with respect to marriage tended
to invalidate Protestant succession. He ended by
denouncing all support of that religion as national
sin.

Mr. DUNLOP, who seconded the motion, took up
the last part of Mr. Spooner's argument., and endea-
voured to prove from the evidence of the committee
that while the Roman Catholics denied in terms the
power of the Pope to absolve subjects from their
allegiance, they admitted it in fact by allowing that
there were circumstances where allegiance ceased—

that the Pope was the best judge of teach circum-
stances—and that every Roman Catholic found his
conscience at ease when acting according to the
decision of the Pope.
Mr. POLLARD URQUHART, who had an amendment
on the paper—that the committee should inquire
into all religions endowments ►n Ireland—contended
that if the grant to Maynooth by a Protestant Legisla-
ture was an anomaly, the existence of the Irish
Church Establishment was one still greater. The
grant had been established by Pitt at one time of
naticnal difficulty, and increased by Peel at another.
If we followed their policy we should now increase
it still further. The Roman Catholic clergy were in
every way connected with the great mass of the
people. Their interferenee at elect;ons dated from
the struggle for emancipation ; but they had often
used their influence for the suppression of revolution
and for the maintaiance of order.
Mr. SCHOLEVIELD quoted the report of the con-
missioners to prove the loyalty and morality of M ay•
nooth. Where was the danger at this moment to
religious liberty to authorise the attacks on this

418

institution? He was afraid that a narrow and per-
secuting spirit was on the increase in the Church of
England. He should not be sorry to see the grant
removed, if every analogous endowment were swept
away along with it. He moved an amendment to

this effect.
Mr. MURROUGH contended that be the studies at
Maynooth what they may, they were in accordance
with the feelings and wishes of the people of Ireland.
He would not remove the pittance to a Church which
had itself to support another Church alien and hos-
tile to its interests. _ _

Mr. A. SMITH approved the motion, saying that the
strongest hatred to England and Protestantism was

inculcated at Maynooth.
Mr. BLAND thought the time most unseasonable
for raising the question.
Mr. HORSFALL quoted Mr. Macaulay and Lord
Carlisle to prove that the Roman Catholic religion,
wherever it now existed in Europe, tended to de-
grade the people, to encourage idleness, and to lower
civilisation.
Mr. HORSMAN, in a long speech, demurred to
the question as a religious one, and argued it on
grounds exclusively political. The grant was but
one link in a chain of policy which had been equally
beneficial both to England and Ireland. He traced
the history of a grant which originated with a Tory
Minister acting under a must auto-Catholic monarch.
One of its principal objects was then to prevent the
Irish priest from being educated abroad, where he
was so likely to imbibe anti-English sentiments.
Following the fortunes of the grant to the present
moment, he quoted the words of several great states-
men in its favour, saying that nu leading man in
either house had ever lent himself to its repeal. He
cited the evidence of the commissioners as a grievous
disappointment to the enemies of Maynooth, and
detailed the many measures which the house had
sanctioned for the relief of the Roman Catholics, the
endowment of their schools and hospitals, and the
limitation of the Irish Established Church. The
Maynooth grant was only part of a system which had
insured peace to both countries. No doubt the
priest had much influence with the peasant—he was
his friend—which the landlord was not, and the law
• was not; but the priest had done his duty by his
flock conscientiously and laboriously. After a glow-
ing eulogium on liberty of conscience, charity and
tolerance, he declaimed against endangering the
present position of affairs in Ireland—now full of
promise—where security had succeeded to danger,
and tranquillity to agitation.
Mr. NAPIER said that they had to deal, net with
the history of the grant, but with its working at pre-
sent. The experiment had failed altogether. We
were to have had a loyal priesthood, yet the priests
maintained the canon law—a domestic priesthood,
yet the priests were in foreign lands—an educated
priesthood, but the plan had failed here as on the
other points. We were still in profound ignorance
as to what was really taught at Maynooth.
The debate was then adjourned.
EDUCATION BILL, No. 2.
Sir J. PAKINGTON moved the second reading of his
bill on Wednesday, in a short speech. He had al-
ready explained its principles at length.
Mr. HENLEY opposed it in full detail. The ques-
tion was, whether we should suspend the present
system, by which a great amount of good was being
effected, while the new scheme was being put into
operation. Although we had many shortcomings,
yet, as compared with other nations, our present sys-
tem was not so faulty after all. He did not think
the proposed scheme would improve that education
which would instruct the mind and reach the heart.
Although the returns s'iowed that many children
were not at school, this arose rather from indif-
ference than opportunity, and there was nothing in
the measure to correct that indifference. He en-
tered at length into evidence to show that in Austria,
where education had been quoted as a model, there
was really less education and more crime than in
England. The same was true of the other German
States. Much had bean said of the inferior condi-
tion of the lower classes in this country, and they
bad been contrasted with those of the Continent;
but if those who had made these statements had
written now, had seen what had taken place in the
streets of Vienna, Berlin, and elsewhere, and had
made comparisons with the endurance of our own
population under suffering and privation, they would
have altered their tone. His objections to the bill
were that it was not permissive, that it imposed an
exclusive charge on real property, that its manage-
ment would be in incompetent hands, and that its
provisions for religious education would lead to diffi-
culty and discontent. The religious provisions were,
in fact, negative in every respect. He objected to
raising the standard of education too high, and caus-
ing children to despise their parents. He concluded
by arguing, from the returns, that the proportion of
crime was far from following the propor ion of the
absence of education. He moved, as an amendment,
that the bill be read a second time that day six
months.