The Press.
London, England, 1856-08-30 00:00:00

THE MAYNOOTH CONTROVERSY.

WE have not the least desire to shrink from
the controversy on the propriety of assailing
Maynooth. On the contrary, we are convinced
that discussion will only establish the reason-
able character of the views promulgated in
our columns. It is the nature of all moral
and political truths that they can be demon-
strated in a variety of ways ; and we shall to-
day adduce fresh arguments in proof of our
opinions. Let us discuss the Maynooth
question as one of principle, and one of prac-
tical politics.
1. As to the question of principle, we have
no desire to flinch from the closest argument
with our adversaries. They contend that for
a Protestant empire to give thirty thousand
pounds per annum for educating Roman Ca-
tholic priests is a flagrant setting up of
" Popery." They say that by such an act we
affirm the "principle ' of the Romish Church;
and that pro tanto this empire is de•Protest-
antised. They treat the question as one of
religious duty, and they iterate their adherence
to " Protestant principles" as if they alone
held a monopoly of the Reformed Religion.
We join issue with them at once, and, in-
stead of demurring to their proposed test, wo
adopt it, and say, " Let Maynooth• be tried as
" a question of Protestant principle." Let us
look to the reality and not to the sound of the
proposed rule. " A principle," said Doctor
JOHNSON, "is worth nothing if it cannot be put
"in practice, and carried out " Suppose that
the grant to Maynooth should be revoked, let
us see whether we should then have estab-
lished what they could call in their own test
" a Protestant empire." Having abolished " May-
nooth," the controversy, if our adversaries
were consistent, should be shifted to Ca-
nada!

Canada is the greatest colony possessed by
the Queen. Its society is polite and prosper-
ous. It has a Governor, representative as-
semblies, a Court, a provincial aristocracy,
and, in short, it presents all the features of
English civilisation. But there is one most
remarkable distinction between Canada and
England. In Canada the Roman Catholic
Church is endowed, and its priests receive—
tithes ! Well, if for the sake of " principle "
Maynooth must be abolished, it is clear that
if the Roman Catholics be left in possession
of . the tithes in Canada the empire must
also be de•Protestantised, by the countenance
given to " Popery " in the colonies. Our op-
ponents have made this question one of
principle ;"- and if the Protestantism of the
empire be tainted by " Maynooth," it must
a fortiori be • seriously corrupted by the
mother country endowing the Church of
Rome in the • New World. Nor is it any
answer to tell-. us that we won Canada from
the French. guch 'a • reply would place our
opponents in fresh-difficulties, as it would ex
hibit them more ready, to make concessions to
hostile colonistst;itan to their own fellow-
subjects nearer homy Locality cannot affect
political morality.

• 819

. " Oh! There were peculiar circumstances
" about Canada," it may be said. " Its antece-
" dents were not similar to those of England."
Precisely. And were there no "peculiar cir-
cumstances " about Ireland? Were the " an-
tecedents " of our sister island not sufficiently
distinctive? An absentee aristocracy, a pea-
santry tilling the. lands of.; proprietors of
another form of faith, a weak executive, and
other hereditary evils, presented remarkable
" antecedents." Furthermore, are we to dis-
regard the manner. in which the Union was
carried, and the support given by the Roman
Catholics to Mr. Pirr ? And. is the sixty
years continuance of the grant to Maynooth to
pass for nothing? It is plain that " May-
flood'," like " Canada," has " antecedents '
which it is vain . for the sturdiest lovers of
"principle " to disregard.
2. But politics are eminently practical, and
in a country where business is popular the
minds of men are more 'vigorously influenced
by considerations of fact, within the imme•
diate perception of all, than by abstract and
ethical arguments. Let us take a practical
view of this question of May nooth.
The whole subject practically turns on the
inquiry as to .whether the Church of Rome in
this realm has become more formidable since
the augmented grant to Maynooth in 1845.
When the grant was increased, the Roman
Catholics were powerful in Ireland. Since
then the famine and the exodus have reduced
their numbers by at least two millions. It is
not only in numbers, but in prestige that they
have lost seriously. The fact is admitted by
themselves, and it was an English Dissenter
(Mr. Mum.), not a Roman Catholic, who lately
asked Parliament to interfere with the tempo-
ralities of the Irish branch of the Estab-
lishment.

Nor is that all. Ten years ago there was
in many English circles a strong desire to
assail. the Irish Church. , That feeling has
greatly subsided; and if Protestants will stand
by their PROTESTANT INSTITUTIONS there can be
no doubt about the Establishment being se-
cured from spoliators. The social power of
the Roman Catholics has diminished. With
the exception of Lord E. HOWARD. the repre-
sentation of England (apart from Ireland) is
exclusively Protestant. In point of fact, there-
fore, it may be positively, affirmed that the
Church of Rome in this realm is weaker now
than it was ten years since. There is no prac-
tical ground for interference, or for meddling
with the laws already established.
Let us now take another view of the case,
contemplating it still in the practical point of
view. Let us suppose that there was ground
for serious alarm about " Popery," the ques-
tion would remain, whether " Maynooth "
should be the point of attack. It seems to be
conceded by the noisy adversaries of " May-
nooth," that the Conservative party cannot
propose to repeal the Act of 1829, known as
the Relief Bill. That is a great admission on
their part; yet, by that bill, much more poli-
tical power is " practically" given to the Roman
Catholic interest, than by the grant to " May-
nooth." Before the Roman Catholics were
emancipated, " Maynooth " existed as a
charge in the estimates. When the Relief
Bill passed, it was felt that it would be
ridiculous to strain at a gnat after having
swallowed the camel. Could a cry of " The
Church in danger " be raised about a grant
for educating the Romish clergy of Ireland,
when the Imperial Legislature had been
opened to the ambition of the Roman Catho-
lics? Surely it must be obvious, if a
movement should be got up against the
Roman Catholics, that some more vulnerable
point than " Maynooth" should be selected.
- Driven into a corner, our adversaries thus
seem• bewildered, as they are hemmed in at
all sides by arguments which show that their
assumed " principles' are untenable in logic,
and impracticable in policy. As a last resource
they then talk of " Maynooth" being " an un-
" just preference." In using those words they
are (unconsciously) employing the same sort
of language as English Dissenters, Radicals,
and Latitudinarians apply to the Irish branch
of our Err eblishment. Nor do they take any
notice of the Begun* Dooms, nor of the fact

1

820

of heterodox Dissenters (like the Unitarians
in Ulster) holding certain portions of glebe
lands

To sum up the argument. It is obvious that
if " Maynooth " were abolished for the sake of
" principle," its adversaries should not stop
there, but assail the Church of Rome in
Canada, and it would be necessary nearer
home to organise opposition to Roman Catho-
lics, peers, judges, generals, admirals, and
captains, Queen's Counsel, and courtly at-
tendants on the Sovereign (like Lords CANIOTS
and CASTLEROSSE). Such a policy could never
be adopted by the statesmen, or tolerated by
the enlightened public, of the empire. But
there is no real necessity for debating such a
proposal, as, in point of fact, the Church of
Rome has not gained in the last ten years,
and we should be only playing her game by
giving the Irish agitators a grievance.
On another day we will show how our
PROTESTANT INSTITUTIONS can be best in-
vigorated; and in attachment to Protes-
tantism we yield to none. The Protes-
tantism of England must be maintained,
and the result of the contests on " the Appro-
priation Clause" leave us no fears on that
point. But the statesmen of the reign of
Queen VICTORIA Will not lend themselves to
injudicious zeal, attempting impossibilities,
and achieving practical mischiefs, under
the pretence of pursuing "principles."

Comsgontatt.

CONSERVATIVE
TO THE EDITOR OF "THE PRESS."

Sir,—l address you as, unfortunately, the only
Conservative organ in the country that is en-
deavouring to bring about Conservative union and
organisation.

You, sir, have always advocated progressive Con
servatisrn ; and if we are ever again to see Con-
servative statesmen at the head of affairs, it can only
be on the intelligible principle of progressive
Conservatism. This idea has, however, given
offence to certain respectaole parties who agree with
Taper and Tadpole that "there is nothin; like a
good cry," ani who believe that the State can alone
be saved by the old "No Popery" shiboleths of the
hustings. Any one who thinks it impolitic to excite
the Catholics of Ireland to disloyalty and rebellion
by a vexatious and retrogressive policy, and who
takes his stand on the broad Conservative principles
enunciated by Mr. Disraeli at the close of last
session, is denounced by them as a heretic and some•
thing worse, holding opinions altogether repugnant
to the spirit of Conservatism.

No honest man can reasonably object to any party
conscientiously holding and prosecuting particular
opinions, even when these opinions are at variance
with his own convictions; but is it not folly to insist
dogmatically on the adoption of these opinions as a
sine qua non of a right to a title cf a far wider
signification ?

It would certainly be an edifying spectacle to see
upwards of three hundred English gentlemen, repre-
senting more than half the electors of Great Britain
and 'reload, moved by a perfect harmony and
identity of sentiment. Such a party would be a
self-propelling machine, and would no more require
a leader of transcendent abilities to direct it than the
Montagne Russe requires a steam-engine to propel
it. But why is the master mind, the hard head and
the strong will, singled out to lead a party if it is not
in order to hold together what at first seem in-
congruous elements! In every party, especially in
a country where free dismission and free thinking
are courted and encouraged, there must be con-
siderable diversity of opinion. Even in the narrow
sect of Methodists the legality of card playing and
the morality of dancing are at this moment under
discussion ! The question to be settled is what Intl-
tude may be allowed for differences of opinion in a
party without endangering the unity of the whole.
By narrowing your basis you secure the nullity of
your influence; by enlarging your basis you are in
danger of giving scope to the intrigues and tramifi-