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

... 60
... 18

as to sins against chastity, the confessor must interro-
gate most cautiously, especially lest his younger peni-
tents should learn those vices which, without that
confession, they might not have understood.—(Hear,
hear.) And he adds that he had known renitents on
the bed of death confess that they have lived for a long
time in the commission of sins, of which if it had not
been for the teaching of the confessors, they would have
remained in entire ignorance. That is all I will say
upon tbat part of the subject; but there is something
else which has a greater demand upon our consideration
here. I egain 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 own,
fairly and candidly, that I entertain a distrust of the
Roman Catholic religion. I object not to the Catholics
on account of their faith. For them I have the highest
respect. In private life I have never made any distine•
tiors 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 transubatantiation; but
if there is added to that doctrine a scheme of worldly
policy of a marked character, I have a right to in-
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 promoting mere religion—that there is in view
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,_iofhp. as
Pr
such? He would ask any (
to another,
f he had
niother, openly
andtol and on
told to
tohiumncalithroisUrs,d opened
eerett his
thoughts
sosnonmd
ot rfa n
thesg re
other,ssion nw ht
he
et h
we ro hr
set wsoeunl
sde nooft feel h
the
word?--(Hear.) Inr d himself
_ithe slave
( aear.)
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 detivh, 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, wh, n the subject of an in-
creased grant to Maynooth wets 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 of t ct that the ne mo-
rialiatt were satisfied with the existing National E,ta-
blished Church in Ireland, and did not seek in any way
to encroach upon the rights, privileges, p iesessions, or
revenues belonging to the bishops awl 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, :hat they were
not desirous of disturbing the exis.ieg arrange-
, ments. It was upon such evidence as this that this
country was deluded in an unhappy moment to pass the
Bill.—(Hear, hear.) He had always considered it ui -
just to exclude R mean Catholics from the possession of
their civil privileges; and he remembered well an argu-
ment used by Mr. Canning on that subject, which ap-
peared to bin) unanswerable. Ic reply to an argument
that the Catholics ought not to be admitted into the
house, as they could not he bound by oaths, Mr. Can-
ning said, " You heap them cut of the house by an oath."
—(Hear.) What, however, was the opinion now ex-
pressed by the Roman Catholics as comestred 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-
, irig of the Noh!e Lord opposite in connexion with
the grant, and the conduct of the Catholic clergy, it
stated—" When he agreed to endow Maynooth he ex-
pected that, in consideration of this endowment, the Su-
preme Head of the Catholic Church upoa earth would
abandon the measures which he thought necessary for
the good of the Catholic Church. He really belie ved, it
seems, that he could buy the holy Roman Church to
abandon her own principles and duties, and that not iu
Ireland only, but in other countries, for the sum of
26,000/, per annum to the college of Sn 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, ho 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. Ile va-
lues the consciences of rulers and membsrs 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 tho 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 be 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 Sove-
reign.—(Hear, hear.) He knew that the late papal ag-
gression bad 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 :he 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 be was wrong, they were right, and
it the Committee were granted, full opportunity would
be afforded to them of vindicating themselves from the
charges which ho brought against them.—(Hear, hear.)
For his own sake he hesitated not to say that every word
he had used was capable of proof, and he challenged
Honourable Members to refute it if they could.—(Hear,
hear.) The country would not be satisfied except a full
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 or' doors, but he had
taken no part in them, reserving t 3 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
INlaynooth.—(Hear, hear.) That was the conclusion to which
he had come, and he had no hesitation in adding, that was
the object with which ho seconded the motion ; and he be-
lieved that the inquiry would prove that repeal to be neces-
sary as a measure of wise and conscie itious policy.—(llear,
hear.) He was one of those who had supported the late Sir
Robert Peel in 1845, by voting for the increesed grant to
Maynooth. He 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, rs, 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 believed
it would be the foundation of the most splendid edifice ever
raised in the world. Other statesmen, eminent ,or ability and
integrity, took a different view, and they ill knew which
proved most correct. In 1813 Mr. Cancan, 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 from 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 Protess
taßts and Catholics are now stretched forth to each ether, and
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
were warranted in inquiring into the facts of the
case. We had no doubt conscientiously endeavoured 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 Members, 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
t
risen in the attempted revolution of 1848, when nothing
from beingnothing but
the moderation of the Government saved
ants e
sent along with their confederates to Van Diemen's
, t
Land. So much for thehe
effe e t expectationsef
Lordth entertainedecseiargenrupon th
d on,s rn
opinion 17 9
and in 1799 and as to
Irish Roman Catholic clergy, and
wCasollegthere building
lle wee
not opposed to that measure,
aonf d theenirdewlmoyeanl Then
tty.
of
t
iele
n bQtuhuteereen,a
the
Right Hon. Member
Graham),
in introdubing that meat
for Ripon (Sir J.
lf.efthat
it would conduce to the con-
cord, sure, said it was his be
ace of
hhthiiehucposcnttrivie.h,Hiaud
ht
sa ta
dedxrpe ea
sc t ato-
Art? the archdiocese of Armagh, ct
ioornd ,hoeredue
fulfilled?r ,
the Roman Catholics o
an and
p
dis-
tinctly declared t aliwtcsethrue
iduccciusuiofnursmoiftythweithSytnhoedv,:oifll Telif u rtlhe:
were in full force—
o e corrupted by a false
Holy See, and that athlleCiraethhoilldicrepnartenths were warned of the
danger of allowing
system of religious instruction. Their parents, therefore,
were either compelled to peiit their children to be without
education in these colleges or to submit 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
against allowing their children from being corrupted in schools

where heresy and Catholicism were placed face to face.
The nature of this grant was peculiar in itself, 44 different
from every other made for educational purposes. r.lt Wa3 for
educating the priests of a religion which was not; their own,
not for the support of Presbyterian or Dissenting clergymen,
PS the Regium Dorium. He unhesitatingly gave his sup-
port to the motion of his Hon. Friend the Member for North
Warwickshire (Mr. 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 existing in;
terests—au endowment against which the feeling of this
country was very strong, and which was repudiated by thie•
people, for whose benefit it was intended. In 1845 upward!
of 10,000 petitions had been sent up against it, and fully 504
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 con-
cluded by'seconding the motion.
Mr. ANS FEY, in rising to propose the amendment cf
which he had given notice, said that there was not a single
word in the speech of the Noble Lord who had just spoke°'
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.--(Hear, 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
t
out of the original motion be had given no long ago:es
February, and it was only by the derisive cheers of his
opponents that he was forced to bring the subject forward
in its present weakened form —(Hear, hear.) The 1310°'
Gentleman's motion referred to the Maynooth grant only'
Now his (Mr. Anstey's) object was to supply what Ifs:
wanting in the Hon. Gentleman's motion, and to extend
it to the repeal of all other grants 'similar to that of Mg'
nooth, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant.--(Hear'
bear.) 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 Psi:
ticular religious institutions.— (Hear, hear.) That Whic",
vexed the Nonconformists was not any erroneous teacbinte
which they believed to be taught in Maynooth, but that the/
believed it a violation of religious liberty to be called on ti)
support any religious institution from which they dis-
sented.—(Hear,hear.) The object of the Hon. mine'
man was sufficiently obviouS, though not explicitlY
de-
clared. It was an attempt to provide a ladder in order t°
break the uneasy fall of lion. Gentlemen of posite' whit;
be would not say their apostacy but their—[Mr. Oarlsoa";
—" Modification"]—but their " modificati2n" on this nu'''.
tion would occasion.- (Hear, hear.) But the Hon. Gentle-
man
could not have stumbled on a more important proposn'
Lion for this purpose, than a motion for inquiring, or one
to which Lord Derby of all others would be less likely to as'
sent, fur on the 4th of June, 1845, Lord Stanley thus which
pressed himself. He quoted from the same authority w,iner,"
supplied the Hon. :Gentleman with his theology_" hap";
sard's Debates."—(Laughter.) Lord Stanley, addressing.t'n
House of Lords on that occasion, said, " That an inquiry '"`-t
Maynooth would be utterly useless"—(Hear)— and he Werlr,
on to say that If they entered upon that inquiry- if, b,
proeccuting it, they called before them the various ofcere
of the college, and the ev'dence which Noble Lords Wet;
prepared to produce, for the purpose of proving that this
that objectionable passage wee to 6e found in the text boon
used at Maynooth, cr that thie or that doctrine or prineiPil
was there inculcated—the only result of such inquiry woued
be an incessant, cmstant, and daily increasing acerbity, 3.'
an exaggeration of all the religious rancour and anineositic„
which remained between different portions of the comle
nity." Such was the larguage of Lord Stanley in 1845. ,
(Hr. Austen') did not propose his amendment with the vie'ai
of retaliating on the Hon. Gentleman, but to affirm a Wee' d
principle which wcs making much way in this country,
even in Ireland, for there were many Roman Catholics
that country who were as steady friends of the volunt!'"st
principle as the Dissenters themselves. He believed tPot
this principle would yet be recognised, if not in the prgear,
Parliament, at least at an early period.—(Cries of " in
hear.") He confined his motion to grants which were
to
siniili costs with the Maynooth grant, that Was vi
say, to endowments supported out of the public funds 3
imposed by Act of Parliament. There were also annuro,
votes which he should oppose whenever they were P'in
posed, because he was convinced that liaise had no r'e.
to concern itself with these miserable questions of polenalii.,
—(Hear, hear.) He would like to see her Majestys to
nieters taking a wider view of the question than was late(
by the Hon. Member for North Warwickshire. it they
disapproved of the Maynooth endowment, let them With'
draw the vote from the Presbyterians of Ireland, cane" the
Donuan, the grant in rid of the bishops and dere.,
of the Established Church, the grants made for clergy
various parts of the Brtish dominions, and in favour of t"ii
chaplains of ambassadors, and all similar items of esKene7;
ture. Let them net confine their view to Maynoot `net
embrace everything else of the same kind. He should tescb
Government by pressing the entire amendment to a vote. I'.
would be competent for them either to accept or reject
,be
At all events, he should have discharged his duty.
Hon. Member then moved as an amendment, "That tuif
House resolve itself into a Committee, for the purpose °
considering of a Bill for repealing the Maynooth Endow'
ment Act, and all other Acts for charging the public rerellue
in aid of ecclesiastical or religious purposes."
Mr. SCHOLEFIELD supported the amendment, end of
doing so did not affirm any admiration of the College ,no
Maynooth, to which he was quite as much opposed ese
Honourable Gentlemen, as he believed it propagatederror
Ile would not, however, avail himself of an attack agati
Roman Catholics to leave unchallenged the larger re'renrii,
of the Irish Church Establishment. The people ofnten
country were deluded by the Honourable Gentleman. ,tnni's
did not want an inquiry. They petitioned for the abolll
of the grant. The terms of the Act of 1845 gave themn
all the visitorial power requisite for checking the conduetibe
the Maynooth authorities. A very large portion of to
people of Ireland felt it a pressure on their consciences is
support the Established Church. Therefore, the argureel3 na
of the Noble Lord who seconded the (engine! motion ca he
with extremely bad grace from him. Upon this
would read a passage from Mr. Macaulay's speech in 181"" ba d
" I say, that objections of that sort come with a veil lisp
grace from one who is the representative of an •cmaeni.
university. When I consider with what magnificence rll
gion and science are endowed in our universities; when; ece
co mind their long streets of palaces, the venerable cloisters'
5
their trim gardens—their chapels with organs, altar-pipe;'',
and stained windows; when I remember their cc"— n
libraries, museums, and galleries of art ; when I remember'
too, all the solid comforts provided in those place both for
instructors and pupile, the stately dwellings of the princina'",
the commodious apartments of the fellows and echolar%
when I remember that the very sizars and servitors i
llts
lodged far be ter than you propose to lodge those pries
who are to teach the whole people of Ireland ; when I think
of the halls, the common-rooms, the bowling-greecs, !cold
the stabling of Oxford and Cambridge—the display 0' 3
ocean...
plate on the tables, the good cheer of the kitchen, the
of excellent ale in the buttery, and when I remember fro
whom all this splendour and plenty are derived; when niire
re-
member the faith of Edward 111. and Henry VI., of f —Ol
garet of Anjou and Margaret of Richmond, of 'Milian,
Wykeham, of Archbishop Chicheley, and Cardinal Yfolseit
when I remember what we have taken from the Ituuto
Catholic religion—King's Cc:liege, New College, lelY the,
Trinity College, and Christ Church—and when I look at _
miserable De-the-boys-Hall we have given them
—I ask myself it we, and if the Protestant religion,
not disgraced by the comparison ?" He believed that
ou!
motion of the Honourable Gentleman wee a contrivance
of political cowardice, to undermine what he dared not Opel'',
a ttack.—(Hear. )
to
Mr. WALPOLE said—l think it right, Sir, on the Pto
of the Government, to state early the course we intend
pursue; and I will do so without indulging in any of those
polemical asperities deprecated by the Hon. Member for
Youghal. We must all agy that this is a question of the
utmost difficulty and delicacy. Whether we regard it in tt!
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,
in return.°
effect to with reference to the religious feelings of the people
of this country.-- (Hear, hear.) Under these circumstances
I approach the sunicue with caution and forbearance. nkf);
proach it I most; for, in the first place it is directly brought
before us, and in the second place it has taken such a h°.'
on the country that we cannot nor we ought not to avoid ~.
To the motion proposed by the Member for 'north Wen'''.
wickshire the Member for Youghal has propooed an aneenu:
relent, that we should not inquire, but repeal all grant'
for ecclesiastical or religion purposes. lie wishes to
establish the voluntary principle. Now that was a greet
question, which ought to be brought forward as a sub'
I, i
stantive proposition. The simple question submitted 'a
e o fed uacladtiosnubisneq3uleanytlnyoo th ; 050
my Honourable Friend is, whether we ought not
bi inquire into
various
tAo :hue
Parliamentf stat
tibsewlhaesttheArutthuef gpraarnrtiasmoreingti,nabl.aly:saacti,
athnedqpueersptieotnuaitmedplibedy
swered the purposes intended. That is a fair way encreage
Mthember
question,b e r
for
Nbefore wa
Warwickshire,
edkosphti
et
,h
namely,
a m conclusionelyto ap
appoint
nt t°thale°C°llo°o°i
mittee of Inquiry. There are two ways in which it 'Wile,
be necessary to go into this question at all. In the first ply
just as has been intimated by the Hoc. Member for `0 r
for
Warwickshire, and I think she by the lion. Member ia
Youghal, it may be said that this question was concluded ter
11v8a4y5,0afnadhtohweirnegforthe
that
tt
iinsilnuoirtytois
abnenoc,cpeesnaeadry,again. ell°.tthe
conclusion of the Noble Lord (the Marquis of Bil3antodfaoardPi_w,.bc;
seems to say the grant is so vicious in principle that it Irv,
no inquiry, and the Cavernment ought to bring in a &nee
repeal it. Now, re to the that of those propositions the :00e
will immediately see that, in point cf fact, the Bondi are
upon which this grant has been made from time to timeline-
conditions which, since Parliament has made them, Pa The
ment has a right to reconsider them.—(Hear, hear.) on
grant was first given in 1793. The object of the grant, 'chde not
given, was this :—The Roman Catholics of Ireland COl' sore
have seminaries and colleges of their own by law, ar'unanee,
forced to have their priests educated in foreign con- is
where revolutionary principles and infidel doctrines Wern
O,an
Cr
vogue, and it was thought expedient by the Britisl, „idea.
that those principles and those doctrines should be ace': on-
There were other reasons for making the grant, but tu'' to
ject of the grant, and it was so stated, was evidently this--ted,
provide in this country, or rather in Ireland, a well edueS
loyal, and domestic priC3theCi. That grant continue ioa
annual one until the Union; and in the 7th article allae
its
was made to CertC.lll BUM?, given to different institutionsei
Ireland, which were gavernteed upon rn average of
years, for a period of twenty yeare. I think Parliarnentvar,
it
nit
;lament
atphtl
ee depgjoeetnrhidileuadtdv(o) continueennluotrLthwhichh v e tabhlytee
conceded. Subsequent to that time the grant was er'''"-e'an"
trgherdea
altered,
terms
tillmoda tiulefBd2tlo.e
or
Union
jun: thinkuina
aeenpamrtaodfePuarrolniagmteanatn,daanodf must or
voluntary
itto
from motives of benevolence. So it continued until the Y
1845, when Sir Robert Peel made an essential changeo,
that grant—first, by increasing the amount; and, ?neonbe
by making it permanenn But at the time be did this ha
stated two grounds for acting, which, I think, We 2ettas
not to lose sight of in considering whether the nran-ast
tinaga
totv,heer
college
ecgoalllevrt.
answered the purposes for which it erre given. Tillee ng-
hf these grounds was the great necessity, the povertY --305
stun
lin det
were paid to the profeszoia is barely to afford them etio go
to live upon, and that the students were compelled ,tiohal
bhtin4tcS3iorl. otbheartt
such
hel
araiepar_es.iennughs
home duting one pencd of the yerr to save the addlun of
expenses which were beyond their means. That is u in-
the grounds upon which he vindicated and justified the its
crease of the grant. The other ground you shall 113vneion
his own words, for I think it extremely material in the :non
,
of the question which I am about to take. The other in
was this—to break up a formidable conspiracy e"siseL, fon-
Ireland against the British Government and the 13riti
nexion. The words of Sir Robert Peel are these :-- "ni,e
fend it ( the Maynooth Bill) because I believe it to be tenet,
end just measure, and far better than the continuance
rr
present system. I call on you to recollect that you a Irish
eponsible for the peace of Ireland.—(Cheers from rho r other
Members.) I say you must break up in some waY c'onntrY
that formidable confederacy which exists in that cn
,o;00.
againet the British Government and the British con ~anhea
—(Ctieers and counter cheers ) I do not believe
te,u'c'h
foil can break it up by force. You can do
n, to
consistently with. the principles you avow ;tot
the maintenance of the 17r ion and the rtv,

Adj vs t 1.47