The Sun.
London, England, 1852-05-12 00:00:00

MAYNOOTH GRANT.

Mr. SPOONER then rose to move for a Select
Committee to inuire into the system of education
carried on at the College of Maynooth. Ho
was confident that in bringing forward his present
motion he would receive the liberal and kind indulgence
of the House.—(Hear, hear.) At the outset he would
say he was anxious to abstain from hurting the feelings
or wounding the consciences of members of the Roman
Catholic faith. He had no quarrel with individuals, but
in the fullness of the Protestant faith, he would give to
every individual the right of private judgment. He
quarrelled with the system of education at Maynooth.
He charged it with being injurious to ociety
of having a tendency to create immorality, and
of being subversive of the true principles of aide-
giance.—(Loud cries of "Hear, hoar.") He maintained
that the original grant was based on a bad principle,
and that the forebodings of those who opposed
it had been completely realized. Tho system was
antagonistic to the word of God, and was in fact a
national sin. As such, therefore, it was his earnest
wish to have the grant removed. He would refrain from
all political argument, and' confine himself simply
to the policy ot the measure. He meant to conclude
by asking for an inquiry into the system of
education pursued at the College of Maynooth.
That would probably be met by a common but, he
thought, unfounded assertion, that nothing could be
gained by the inquiry, as the House already knew every-
thing connected with the system of education. He
would now lay before the House the authority of Sir
Robert Peel to show that such an inquiry was at all
times incumbent on the House. He believed that gene-
, rally the contents and nature of the books used in the
College were unknown. When Sir R. Peel settled the
grant by Act of Parliament, he said he did not agree in
opinion that the system of instruction ought to be a matter
of indifference to the House. But it was said they could
not revoke a grant which had been solemnly made. On
that he joined issue. Was he to be told that the House
could not recall its own gift if it saw sufficient reasons
for doing so? Lord J. Russell also stated, in April,
1845, though he did not agree that they should sud-
denly stop advancing further sums, he considered that
; if the persons who benefited by them b-came the leaders
of rebellion, or sought to injure the community, there
would be a valid reason for withdrawing all
assizeince from the college. That was a sound con-
, stitutional principle, and was applicable to the present
question. No one could deny that the priests educated
at Maynooth had from time to time, and especially
recently, offered resistance to the power of the
Crown and the constitution as by law established.
They said, in fact, that they would never be content
while the incubus of the Established Church continued
to exist.—(Loud cheers from the Irish Members.)
lion. Members opposite admitted that, but by
the oath of allegiance which every Roman
Catholic took in that House, they were bound not
to injure the Established Church.—(Cheers.) These
priests were not teachers of religion, but the leaders and
conductors of rebellion, and he held that they were at
liberty to repeal the grant whenever they
found that it was employed for purposes injurious
to the public weal, and dangerous to the welfare of the
Monarchy. The great concession had not been re-
ceived by the Roman Catholics in the liberal and confid-
ing spirit in which it was made. The Propaganda expressed
the deepest feeling of delight at the exceeding munifi-
cence of the Government of England, but unfortunately
the practice pursued at Maynooth did not coincide with
what might have been expected under the circumstances.
The books used in the college said that every person
baptized iu the Roman Catholic Church should be con-
sidered to be under the dominion of that Church.
They also contained the doctrine that the Church had
the power to dispense with all oaths and vows when cir-
cumstances might render it necessary or expedient.
They then proceeded to point out 24 ways in which
oaths might be got rid of.—(Hear, and laughter.)
He would not go through the entire 24, but would g V
a few of them. Bain, upon moral theology, in vol. 7,
chap. 2, page 343, says:—" A promissory oath obliges,
under the penalty of mortal sin, to do that which is pro-
mised in the oath, unless a legitimate cause excuses."
At page 345 there is a chapter with this title—" Of the
causes which prevent or take away the obligation of an
oath." Of these, seven are named; the third is—" Tho
hindering of a greater good which is opposed to that
promised in the oath" (which is susceptible ofa wide
ecclesiastical range). The seventh cause pretvaeltlingenids
the " limitation, either expressed, or eovfenthe
swey
arer.
silently understood,
For, in every oath cerotfainthgeenienrtaeln'elonrid.itions are, from
justice and use, included; one of them is, itsi,on')utneless you
, `saving
accept, unless you remit,' another (c di
the right of another.' " If a religion were taught which
i
bound men to look upon an oath n the manner there
h
referred to, what security could they have for
t
forth—e(Ha
obser-
vanceer of an oath by those who wer_slo taughtnse
whether
The
voice they
;
hear.) lie therefore asked the H
would refuse to inquire into thissystem?
such things must not,
the whole kingdom was, that
and should not be; and that was a voice which
ere long would be beard in a
.way_which the
House of Commons could no longer r© ist.—entear, hear.)
It was for those reasons that he asked the House to in-
quire into, and put a stop to this system in time,
ebefore
pressure
they were compelled to do so dby "thefrom
olvr cameiasellr
Wiseman
en; onwTht
eowithout," which it was always angearo.usHteo provoke, for
once provoked, it could never beofst
another point, and it was one
CsaoYamrdeinimalp
House would recollect when
he openly professed that his ob
re-
turned to this country
feet was to establish the canon law. Now what said the
Lord Bacon of the Roman,Catholics—their great ex-'I
pounder of the canon law? In every promissory no;e,"
says Reiffenstual, writing on the subject of oaths, in his
"Jas Canonicum Universam," which is a standard book
at Maynooth—" though made absolutely, there are un-
doubtedly, certain tacit conditions, as first, If lam
able'—and secondly, saving the law and authority of
my superior.' " That was the canon law which Cardi-
na Wiseman was endeavouring to establish in this
country, and which was taught in the College of May-
nooth. Once let Cardinal Wiseman get the Roman
Catholics of England to believe that that canon law was
binding upon them, and he (Mr. Spooner) would ask
what security the people of this country had for the
preservation of their property, their happiness, and
some of their best interests. The Honourable Member
proceeded to read a series of extracts from various
Roman Catholic commentators on the canon law, and
from Roman Catholic books, with the view of showing,
among other things, that if a person in communion with
the Roman Catholic Church had sworn anything which
the Pope conceived to be contrary to his dignity, such
an oath was not binding on his conscience, and generally
the light in which heretics were regarded by that church.
He contended that, in the treatment of heretics, one
principle alone pervaded the whole teaching of the Ro-
man Catholic Church, and that was that they were to be
tolerated until the time arrived when they could be al-
together put down, and that if at any particular period it
was thought an attempt to accomplish that end would
not be successful, the Church was to bide its time, until
circumstances became changed by its becoming more do-
minant. or otherwise. He cautioned the House against
giving little by little its sanction to the teaching ot doc-
trines of that kindr and to beware of the cost. There
was an old trite saying, " The eggs first, and the eagles
afterwards." [The Honourable Member continued,
amid signs of impatience, and occaional interruption,
directly from the Irish Members on the Opposition
side of the House, to cite passages from the canon
law and the writings of Thomas Aquinas and other
commentators to prove that laymen hindering the exe-
cution of mandates, citations, and other like proceed-
ings issuing from the Church of R ,me, " were smitten
with excommunication ;" when thefts were mortal and
when venial sins ; that the people wore bound to obey
the ecclesiastical, notwithstanding it was averse to mo-
narchical law ; that a person who owed anything to a
heretic arising out of any exchange, pledge,or d,frompo stttho,
loan, or any other contract, was ip
s°
fe
act °free
his promise or
obligation, and was not bound to keep
perform his contract, even though ho had
sworn to do
it ; and that a secular judge had no jurisdiction over
the clergy in criminal cases,_ "seeing that,. they enjoyed
the privilege of God and were exempt from the civil
jurisdiction."] He appealed to the House if those were
doctrines which the Government of this country ought
to pay for teaching ? The House, however, had made
the people pay for the teaching of them. It was, in
fact, a part of our national system, and, he sub-
mitted it was one of which the sooner we got rid the
better. The truth was, that priestly dominion was the
great characteristic of the Roman Catholic Church and
its whole tendency was to " confine the intellect and en-
slave the soul."—(Hear.) He would not pollute the
ears of his audience—he would not be the teacher, or
rather the publisher, if he might use the expression—of
those filthy dectrines which he could not have believed
any church would have permitted to be taught to its
communicants, had he not felt himself obliged to go
through the books in which they were found. He would
only make one remark, on the authority of a Roman Ca-
tholic writer on Conkssion, to the effiet that certain
penitents were questioned at confession only as to those
sins which were most common and usual among that
class of persons; they were to be asked if they bad
committed theft, and how often—and if they had sworn,.a
and how often. The same writer proceeded to Ail

as to sins against chastity, the confessor must ieLerro-
gate most cautiously, especially lest his younger peni-
tents should learn those vices which, a ithout that
C :ufession, they might nut have understood.--(Hear,
hear.) Aud ho adds that he had known Teniteuts on
the bed of death confess that they have lived for a long
time in the commission of sins, of which if it heal not
been fur the teaching of the coofwoor.s, ti=cy would have
remained in entire imeorence. That is all I will 53. y
upon that part of the subject; but there is somiel.ing
else which has a greater demand upon our consideration
here. I again quote the words of the late Sir Robert
Peel, who, speaking on the motion of Sir Francis Bur-
dett, on the 6th of March, 1827, said:—" I will owe,
fairly and candidly, that I ent,rtain a distrust of the
Roman Catholic religion. I object not to the Catholics
on account of their faith. Fur them I have the highest
respect. In private life I have never made any distine•
time between persons on account of their religion. It is
a matter of perfect indifference to me whether or not a
party professes the doctrine of trausubstantiation ; but
if there is added to that doctrine a scheme of worldly
policy of a marked character, I have a right to
ic-
quire into its nature, and observe its effects upon man-
kind. Can any man acquainted with the state of the
world doubt for a moment that there is engrafted on
the Catholic religion something more than a scheme
for prometiug mere religion—that there is in vif w
the furtherance of a means by which man may
acquire authority over man? Can wo know what the
doctrines of absolution, confession, of indulgences are,
without a suspicions that those doctrines are entertained
for the purpose of establishing the power of man over
the hearts and minds of men? What is it to me what the
source of power is called, if practically it operates as
such? Ho would ask any Hon. Gentleman present whe-
ther, if he had openly and uncontrolled opened his bosom
to another, and told to him all his secret thoughts and
transgressions, whether he would not feel himself the slave
the other, in the worst sense of the word?—(Elear.)
And yet that was one of the doctrines which that House
taught at Maynooth. Another point connected with
confession was that the confessor was bound to secrecy,
and that in no case, without the express leave of the
• party, not even to escape death, not even to save the
State, could any violation of this secrecy be admitted,
so that, if treason to the Sovereign were confessed, the
confessor would be bound to secrecy. The Honourable
Member then referred to a pamphlet of Mr. Eneas Mac-
donald, published in 1845, when the subject of an in-
creased grant to Maynooth was under consideration, and
which contained extracts from various petitions presented
by Roman Catholic Prelates, in 1792, on the subject of
Roman Catholic disabilities, to the effect that the memo-
rialists were satisfied with the existing National Esta-
blished Church in Ireland, and did not seek in any way
to encroach upon the rights, privileges, possessions, or
revenues belonging to the bishops and clergy of the
Established Church. Dr. Doyle also stated in his evi-
dence, quoted in the pamphlet referred to, that he could
undertake to say that not a single Catholic clergyman in
Ireland would contradict what he stated, that they were
not desirous of disturbing the existing arrange-
ments. It was upon such evidence as this that this
country was deluded in an unhappy moment to pass that
Bill.--(Hear, hear.) He had always considered it un-
just to exclude Roman Catholics from the possession of
their civil privileges; and ho remembered well an argu-
ment used by Mr. Canning on that subject, which ap-
peared to him unanswerable. In reply to an argument
that the Catholics ought not to be admitted into the
house, as they could not be bound by oaths, Mr. Can-
ning said, " You keep them out of the house by an oath."
—(Hear.) What, however, was the opinion now ex-
pressed by the Roman Catholics as compared with those
used by them before they obtained the grant from the
Government? The Catholic Defence Association put
forth an address a few days since, in which, speak-
ing of the Noble Lord opposite in connexion with
the grant, and the c induct of the Catholic clergy, it
stated—" When ho agreed to endow Maynooth he ex-
pected that, in consideration of this endowment, the Su-
preme Head of the Catholic Church upon earth would
abandon the measures which he thougot necessary for
the good of the Catholic Church. He really believed, it
seems, that he could buy the holy ROll3llll Church to
abandon her own principles and duties, and that not in
Ireland only, but in oth, r countries, for the sum of
26,0001. per annum to the college of St. Patrick, May-
nooth. This is the exact price at which he valued the
holy Church throughout the world. It is strange that,
with history before him, he should have dreamed that
the Catholic Church could be bought at any price;
stranger still, that he should suppose any men, however
base, would sell it for a bribe so contemptible. He va-
lues the consciences of rulers and members of the whole
Church throughout the world at the sum of 26,0001."
It was not, he found, the Noble Lord opposite to whom
reference was made, but the Noble Earl now at the head
of the Government.—(Laughter.) He saw nothing at
which Hon. Members could laugh, for he believed, judg-
ing from the strong speeches which that Noble Lord
had made on the subject of " the Papal aggression," that
the sentiments which he entertained on the subject were
similar to those of the Noble Earl. The subject to
which he had called the attention of the House
was not yet exhausted, but he was anxious
not to weary the House by going into it at greater
length. What he wished to impress upon the House
was, that they were giving aid, and calling upon the
people to pay for a religion which he thought he had
shown was subversive of morality, which was dangerous
to the existence of the social compact, and which was in
direct opposition to the duty of allegiance to the Sore-
reign.—(Hear, hear.) He knew that the late papal ag-
gression had opened the eyes of the people of the
country, and from one end to the other they were crying
out to put a stop to the rebellious, contumacious, dis-
loyal, and dictating conduct of the Irish Romen Catholic
clergy. He would show, if they granted him the Com-
mittee, that the whole of this conduct was in strict ac-
cordance with the teachings and doctrines inculcated at
Maynooth, It was the bounden duty of the House to
grant him the inquiry, and he called upon Irish Mem-
bers to meet it like men who were challenged to inves-
tigate the truth. If he was wrong, they were right, and
it the Committee were granted, full opportunity would
bo afforded to them of vindicating themselves from the
charges which he brought against them.—(hear, hear.)
eywo
For his own sake he hesitated not to say that every word
he had used was capable of proof, and he challenged
Mthi :,337fi
ecdo could.—except
xl do.e—p
t( lla ef au rli,
hHeounr oou r aTb
nl ee
oeumbrs to
urledfu notte itb if te satisfied
and
and searching investigation and inquiry took place
before a Committee of that House impartially selected.
—(Cheers.) The Honourable Member concluded by
moving the resolution.
The Marquis of BLANDFORD seconded the motion,
which he said had been so ably moved by his Hon. Friend
that it was unnecessary for him to say more than a few words.
He knew that propositions of this nature only emanated from
parties out of doors, holding rather narrow religious views;
but he took that opportunity of saying that he had had no
connexion with any party of that nature. There might have
been such expressions of opinion out of doors, but he had
taken no part in them, reserving to himself an opportunity
of freely expressing his opinion in that house. There could
be but one inference come to from the statement of his Hon.
Friend, namely, that it was their duty to repeal the grant to
Maynooth.—(Hear, hear.) That was the conclusion to which
he had come, and he had no hesitation in adding, that was
the object with which he seconded the motion ; and he be-
lieved that the inquiry would prove that repeal to be neces-
sary as a measure of wise and conscientious policy.—(Hear,
hear.) He was one of those who had supported the late Sir
Robert Peel in 1845, by voting for the increased grant to
Maynooth. Ile believed that eminent statesman, how-
ever, at that time, looked upon the continuance and in-
crease of that grant as not a new policy, but merely the
sequence of that which had been pursued from the time of
the Union. 'He had stated that there were three courses
that might be pursued, either to repeal, the grant altogether,
to suffer it to remain in its then inefficient state, or to in-
crease it in such a manner as would confer upon those edu-
cated at Maynooth a superior and satisfactory education.
That great statesman adopted the last, as, in his opinion, the
best, and anticipated from it the happiest results for Ireland
and the empire; and many men, also eminent statesmen,
had been equally deceived in their anticipations, and acted
from as pure motives. In 1792, when the French Constitu-
tion was promulgated, Mr. Fox, who was then a Member
of that House, viewed that constitution as the dawn of
light breaking upon the darkness of despotic power. He
little apprehended what would follow, but said he be
it would be the foundation of the most splendid edifice ever
raised in the world. Other statesmen, eminent for ability and
integrity, took a different view, and they all knew which
proved most correct. In 1813 Mr. Canning, in introdueing
his Bill for removing Catholic disabilities, animated by the
noblest and most generous motives, was still mistaken as
to the policy and the results he anticipated' from it—
that great statesman said, "If we pause, if we retrograde,
we shall descend from the pinnacle on which we now
stand, and front whence we command a view of Protestants
and Roman Catholics becoming loyal fellow•subjects. To
give up this would be to lose all we have gained. There is
a tide in the affairs of men, on the summit of which we are
, now riding. Let us not turn back. The hands of Protes.
tants and Catholics are now stretched forth to each other, end
have nearly met. That was another instance of the er-
roneous views which have been entertained by the most
illustrious men. Under these circumstances, therefore, they
wore warranted in inquiring into the facts of the
case. We had no doubt conscientiously enthavoured to
educate the people and the priesthood 'of Ireland.
He made no objection to that, though he said the most im-
portant part of education was religious instruction. But
let them look at a few facts, and what were the con-
clusions to which they led ? He had no wish
to hurt the feelings of Roman Catholic Mombers, but he
said there were three great principles on which we had been
in error in dealing with them. In 1795 the grant was
given to Maynooth for the express purpose of educating the
Irish priesthood, and keeping them in a better spirit.
Since then that grant had been enlarged, and yet they
found in the Tablet a letter from Lord Clarendon to the
Earl of Shrewsbury, which there was not the slightest
doubt was authentic. The late Viceroy stated that, though
the Pope had ordered the Irish priests not to meddle with
public and political matters, yet that many of them had
risen in the attempted revolution of 1848, when nothing but
the moderation of the Government saved them from being
sent along with their confederates to Van Diemea's
Land. So much for the expectations entertained in 1795
u
I'
and in 1799, and as to the effect of these grants_
don's opinionon the
Irish Roman Catholic clergy, and Lord Ciaren
was the building
of their loyalty. Then there Colleges. He was
and endowment of the Queen's
not opposed to that measure, but the
Right
Hon. Member
for Ripon (Sir J. Graham), in introdueing that mea-
sure, said it was his belief that ►t wou'd conduce to the
stcon-
cord, order, and peace of the country. a-
Ilad that expe
tion been fulfilled? Archbishop Cullen, in his address to
Catholics the Roman of the archdiocese of Armagh, dis-
tinctlythdecisions of the Synod :of Thud(
were in full force—were
declared that e
in conformity with the will of the
Holy See, and that alt
Catholic parents were warned of the
clanger of allowing their children to be corrupted by a false
us instruction. Their parents, therefore,
system of religious
were either compelled to permit their children to be without
,es or to submit
education in these co to excommunication.
The best illustration of the error of our attempts to educate
the
Irish
people was to be found in the National Schools.
They were put forward on the same grounds, and they might
have effected good for the people, and though he did not ap-
prove of it, it was better to have education of any kind than
none at all; but how had these schools been treated, he
would not say by Dr. Cullen, but by a French prelate,
whom he quoted in his letter? Catholic parents were warned
ttgainut 4119WiDg theirchildren fr9l4 being corrupted iu 40;9913

where heresy and Catholicism were placed face to face.
The nature of this grant was peculiar in itself, and ditTer
fet(l;.
from every other made fur educational purposes. It was
educating the priests of a religion which was not their oven,'
not for the support of Presbyterian or Dissenting clergymen,
as the Regium Donum. He unhesitatingly gave his sup-
port to the motion of his Hon. Friend the Member for north
Warwickshire (Ur. Spooner), and he called on the House to
institute this, inquiry, and to repeal this endowment as
quickly as it might be done consistently with existieg in-
terests—an endowment against which the feeling of this
country was very strong, and which was repudiated by the
people, for whose benefit it was intended. In 1845 upwards
of 10,000 petitions had been sent up against it, and fully 500
petitions had been forwarded this session, praying for its re-
peal. Let them, in obedience to the feeling which these pe-
titions evinced, adopt the motion of his Hon. Friend the
Member for North Warwickshire. The Noble Lord cm-
eluded by's 'cond'ng the motion.
Mr. ANS rEY, iu rising to propose the amendment of
which he had given notice, said that there was not a single
word in the speech of the Noble Lord who had just spoken,
which did not show that there was no need of further in-
quiry, and that reasons sufficient existed already for the re-
peal of this grant.—(llear, hear.) The Noble Lord had not
quoted a single fact to show that any inquiry was necessary.
The object of the Hon. Mover was to create political capital
out of this subject, but when he found that the present Go-
vernment had unexpectedly succeeded to office he backed
out of the original motion he had given so lung ago as last
February, and it was only by the derisive cheery of his
opponents that he was forced to bring the subject forward
in its present weakened form —(Hear, hear.) The Hon.
Gentleman's motion referred to the Maynooth grant only.
Now his (Mr. Anstey's) object was to supply what WAS
wanting in the Hon. Gentleman's motion, and to extend
it to the repeal of all other grants similar to that of May-
nooth, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant.—(Hear,
hear.) His view was that they should not appropriate the
means which the Constitution enabled them to draw from
the over-taxed people of this country, to support any par-
ticular religious institutions.— (Hear, hear.) That which
vexed the Nonconformists was not any erroneous teaching
which they believed to be taught in Maynooth, but that they
believed it a violation of religious liberty to be called on to
support any religious institution from which they dis-
sented.—(Hear, hear.) The object of the Hon. Gentle-
man was sufficiently obvious, though not explicitly de-
clared. It was an attempt to provide a ladder in order to
break the uneasy fall of Hon. Gentlemen opposite, which—
he would not say their apostacy but their—[Mr. OSBOUNS
Modification"]—but their " modification" on this ques-
tion would occasion.— (Hear, hear.) But the Hon. Gentle-
man could not have stumbled on a more important proposi-
tion for this purpose, than a motion for inquiring, or one
to which Lord Derby of all others would be less likely to as-
sent, for on the 4th of June, 1345, Lord Stanley thus ex-
pressed himself. He quoted from the same authority which
supplied the Hon. :Gentleman with his theology--.. Han-
sard's Debates."—(Laughter.) Lord Stanley, addressing the
House of Lords on that occasion, said, "That an inquiry into
Maynooth would be utterly useless"—(Hear)—and he went
on to say that " If they entered npoa that inquiry— if, in
prosecuting it, they called before them the various officers
of the college, and the evidence which Noble Lords were
prepared to produce, for the purpose of proving that this or
that objectionable passage was to be found in the text books
used at Maynooth, or that this or that doctrine or principle
was there inculcated—the only result of such inquiry would
be an incessant, constant, and daily increasing acerbity, and
an exaggeration of all the religious rancour and animosities
which remained between different portions of the commu-
nity." Such was the language of Lord Stanley in 1845. He
(Mr. Anstey) did not propose his amendment with the view
of retaliating on the Hon. Gentleman, but to affirm a great
principle which was making much way in this country, and
even in Ireland, for there were many Roman Catholics in
that country who were as steady friends of the voluntary
principle as the Dissenters themselves. He believed that
this principle would yet be recognised, if not in the present
Parliament, at least at au early period.—(Cries of " Hear,
hear.") He confined his motion to grants which were in
simili casu with the Maynooth grant, that was to
say, to endowments supported out of the public funds and
imposed by Act of Parliament. There were also annual
votes which he should oppose whenever they were pro-
posed, because he was convinced that House had no right
to concern itself with these miserable questions of polemics.
—(Hear, hear.) He would like to see her Majesty's eli-
nisters taking a wider view of the question than was taken
by the lion. Member for North Warwickshire. It they
disapproved of the Maynooth endowment, let them with-
draw the vote from the Presbyterians of Ireland, called the
Regiune Donum, the grant in aid of the bishops and clergy
of the Established Church, the grants made for clergy in
various parts of the British dominions, and in favour of the
chaplains of ambassadors, and all similar items of expendi-
ture. Let them not confine their view to Maynooth, but
embrace everything else of the same kind. He should test
Government by pressing the entire amendment to a vote. It
would be competent for them either to accept or reject it.
At all events, he should have discharged his duty. The
Hon. Member then moved as an amendment, "That this
House resolve itself into a Committee, for the purpose of
considering of a Bill for repealing the Maynooth Endow-
ment Act, and all other Acts for charging the public revenue
in aid of ecclesiastical or religious purposes.'
Mr. SCHOLEFIELD supported the amendment, and in
doing so did not affirm any admiration of the College of
Maynooth, to which he was quite as much opposed as the
Honourable Gentleman, as he believed it propagated error.
He would not, however, avail himself of an attack against
Roman Catholics to leave unchallenged the larger revenues
of the Irish Church Establishment. The people of this
country were deluded by the Honourable Gentleman. They
did not want an inquiry They petitioned for the abolition
of the grant. The terms of the Act of 1845 gave them
all the visttorial power requisite for checking the conduct of
the Maynooth authorities. A very large portion of the
people of Ireland felt it a pressure on their consciences to
support the Established Church. Therefore, the arguments
of the Noble Lord who seconded the original motion came
with extremely bad grace from him. Upon this point he
would read a passage from Mr. Macaulay's speech in 1845
" I say, that objections of that sort come with a very bad
grace from one who is the representative of an English
university. When I consider with what magnificence reli-
gion and science are endowed in our universities; when I call
to mind their long streets of palaces, the venerable cloisters,
their trim gardens—their chapels with organs, altar-pieces,
and stained windows; when I remember their schools,
libraries, museums, and galleries of art; when I remember,
too, all the solid comforts provided in those placees both for
instructors and pupils, the stately dwellings of the principals,
the commodious apartments of the fellows and scholars;
when I remember that the very sizars and servitors aro
lodged far be ter than you propose to lodge those priests
who are to teach the whole people of Ireland ; when I think
of the halls, the common-rooms, the bowling-greers, even
the stabling of Oxford and Cambridge—the display of old
plate on the tables, the good cheer of the kitchen, the oceans
of excellent ale in the buttery, and when I remember from
whom all this splendour and plenty are derived; when I re-
member the faith of Edward 111. and Henry VI., of Mar-
garet of Anjou and Margaret of Richmond, of William -of
Wvkeham, of Archbishop Chicheley, and Cardinal Wolsey ;
when I remember what we have taken from the Roman
Catholic religion—King's College, New College, my own
Trinity College, and Christ Church—and when I look at the
miserable Do-the-boys-Hall we have given them in return
—I ask myself it we, and if the Protestant religion, are
not disgraced by the comparison ?" He believed that the
motion of the Honourable Gentleman was a contrivance
of political cowardice, to undermine what he dared not openly
a ttack.—(Hear. )

Mr. WALPOLE said—l think it right, Sir, on the part
of the Government, to state early the course we intend to
pursue; and I will do so without indulging in any of those
polemical asperities deprecated by the Hon. Member for
Youghal. We must all agree that this is a question of the
utmost difficulty and delicacy. Whether we regard it in its
political or social bearing, it is intimately connected with
and touches upon the tenderest points of our warmest feel- -
ings and sensibilities, which recent events have given great
efiect to with reference to the religious feelings of the people
of this country. - (Hear, hear.) Under these circumstances
I approach the subject with caution and forbearance. Ap-
proach it I must; for, in the first place it is directly brought
before us, and in the second place it has taken such a hold
on the country that we cannot nor we ought not to avoid it.
To the motion proposed by the Member for North War-
wickshire the Member for Youghal has proposed an amend-
ment, that we should not inquire, but repeal all grants
for ecclesiastical or religious purposes. He wishes to
establish the voluntary principle. Now that was a great
question, which ought to be brought forward as a sub-
stantive proposition. The simple question submitted by
my Honourable Friend is, whether we ought not to
inquire into the state of education is Maynooth ; and
the question implied is whether the grants originally made
by various Acta of Parliament and subsequently increased
and perpetuated by the last Act of Parliament, have an-
swered the purposes intended. That is a lair way to look at
the question, before we adopt the conclusion of' the Hon-
Member for North Warwickshire, namely, to appoint a Corn-
mittee of Inquiry. There are two ways in which it may not
be necessary to go into this question at all. In the first place,
just as has been intimated by the Hon. Member for North
Warwickshire, and I think also by the Hon. Member for '
Youghal, it may be said that this question was concluded in
1845, and therefore it is not to be opened again. Another
way of showing that inquiry is unnecessary, is to adopt the
conclusion of the Noble Lord (the Marquis of Blandford) who
seems to say the grant is so vicious in principle that it needs
no inquiry, and the Government ought to bring in a Bill to
repeal it. Now, as to the first of those propositions the House
will immediately see that, in point of fact, the conditions
upon which this grant has been made from time to time are
conditions which, since Parliament has made them, Parlia-
ment has a right to reconsider them.—(Hear, hear.) The
grant was first given in 1795. The object of the grant, when so
given, was this:—The Roman Catholics of Ireland could not
have seminaries and colleges of their own
inby law, and wore
forced to have their priests educatedforeign coun ries,
i
where revolutionary principles and nfidel doctrines were in
vogue, and it was thought expedient by the British Crown
that these principles and those doctrines should be excluded.
There were other reasons for makindgewtlahanesdge:raaidnzt,neltblluyedtttuhheie ob-
ject of the grant, and
9—to
grant continued an
provide in this coutinctrpyir,tieowsrtahrsaoorhde.srtaiTntehlar't
loyal, and domes
annual one until the Union • and in the 7th article allusion
was ma de to certain sums, given to different institutions in
Ireland, which were
guaranteed upon an average of six
years, for a period of twenty years. I think Parliament was
there pledged to continue the grant till 1820. I think Par-
liament could not have altered, modified, or diminished it
until the period for which by the terms of the Union it was
conceded. Subsequent to that time the grant was entirely
voluntary one on the part of Parliament, and must be con-
side
motives to have been made upon grounds of expediency or
of beSo it continued until the ear
1845, when Sir Robert Peel made an essential change in
that grant— first, by increasing the amount; and, secondly,
by making it permanent. But at the time he did this he
stated two grounds for so acting, which, I think, we ought
not to lose sight of in considering whether the grant has
answered the purposes for which it was given. The first
of these grounds was the great necessity, the poverty hang-
ing over the college. I think Sir Robert Peel represented
that the college was in debt 4,0001, that such small sums
were paid to the professors as barely to afford them enough
to live upon, and that the students were ce npelled to go
home during one period of the year to save the additional
expenses which were beyond their means. That is one of
the grounds upon which he vindicated and justified the in-
crease of the grant. The other ground you shall have in
his own words, for I think it extremely material in the view
of the question which I am about to take. The other ground
was this—to break up a formidable conspiracy existing in
Ireland against the British Government and the British con-
nexion. The words of Sir Robert Peel are these:—" I de-
fend it ( the Maynooth Bill) because I believe it to be a wise
and just measure, and far better than the continuance of the
present system. I call on you to recollect that you are re-
sponsible for the peace of Ireland.—(Cheers from the Irish
Membus.) I say you must break up in some way or other
that formidable confederacy which exists in that country
against the British Government and the British connexion!
—(Cheers ,and counter cheers.) I do not believe that
you can break it up by force. You can do much
o
consistently with the principles you avow as t..
the paitititell4llo of the 11111911 444 the Pretataub