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

M A Y 12, 1852.

is
he uct sm.
iss
joßn
cameut,n to report,otwithstanding that direction, wben
they prominently and, I ,
think, wisely stated :--" We did
not consider that it fell
within our provieer to exainineetihnto the,P tenets of the Roman i
Catholic religion, except when eared to be connected
With the civil duties and r. Ottion;C:f lioman Catholics. either
towards the State or towards their fellow-s
con-
fess it appears to me that these words lljicimpartiallyets I
inquiry:and pre-
cisely state the scope of this Y-oi are entitled to in-
quire into the system of education,,hte :iv
anidl
dutiesoft and relations',
Roman Catholic
teaching, FO far as it touches
,
of the inmates of the college. Beyond thatyou are
not en-
titled to go, and into the domain of theology you
is shouldh be
precluded from entering.— (Hear, hear.)
and intention in which former Acts of Parliament have spirit
framed. ' But I understood the lion. Member for North
beenath
Warwickshire to contend for something like a visitatorial
power with respect to the system of the Roman Catholic
Church as taught and exercised in the College of May-
.nooth. . understand it to be the gist of his argument that
the Committee should have power to inquire into that sys-
tem. But I say, on the contrary, that if you want to fulfil
and adhere to the intentions of the Legislature, you have no
right to touch that, except where the system bears upon the
question of civil obedience and the relations of Itiman
Catholics towards their fellow-subjecte. What, however,
are the provisions of the Acts which have been passed?
The Act of 1795 appointed trustees with visitatorial power?
The Irish Parliament again in 1803 constituted one 'body of
trustees to hold, the- property, and another to exercise the
visitatorial power. In the Act of 1845 that power was
continued, but the superior power of Parliament was re-
served a .special provision being inserted enabling the Lord
Lieutenant to order a special visitation. The Act of 1845
contained the reservation that the . reports of the
visitors should be annually laid on the table of both Houses
of Parliament. I consider that reservation to have been a
distinct recognition of the principle that the intention of
Parliament was to reserve its own full rind unimpaired
rights over the inslitation which it had founded, and that
therefore (setting apart the policy of the case), it is plain
you •are exercising a power to which you are entitled in
appointing a Committee.—( Hear, hear.) But the Hon.
Member for North Warwickshire was quite in error when he
represented, or intended to represent, that Parliament had
appointed no means of visiting the college with respect to
Roman Catholic , discipline and instruction, and that,
therefore, it was the duty. of Parliament to step in with
this Select Committee. On the contrary, if he reads the
Acts he cannot fail to perceive that Parliament has consti-
tuted a 'visitatorial power for specific purposes, and that
that power is final. In the Act of 1800, and the Act of
1845, Parliament stated that any matter which regarded
the exercise of the Roman Catholic religion, doctrine, and dis-
cipline, should not be touched by the body of visitors at
large, but by Roman Catholic visitors exclusively. No-
thing, .I think, can be more clear than the statutes and
preeedents with regard to this question—nothing can be
more clear than that Parliament, when it entered into these
arrangements, did not intend to place the members of- the
Roman Catholic Church perpetually on tenter-hooks, and
bring it into opposition with the religious sentiments of the
people of this country. Parliament approached the sub-
ject in a statesmanlike spirit. It proceeded in the belief that
the Roman Catholic religion was a system well known
in history—was a system whose merits had been tested by
a sufficiently long experience to enable Parliament to say
aye or nay to the question whether it would have relations
with it or not. Proceeding in that spirit, Parliament
did not condescend to accompany the boon with
insufferable renditions, and degrading and painful
reservations, but it provided a security against
the assaults • of theological rivalry, and respected the
feelings and doctrines of those persons for whom the endow-
ment was intended. Parliament has left to us a clear pat-
tern and clear rules by which we should now direct our
course.. It is in conformity with those roles that I consent
to the inquiry of the Hon. Member for North Warwickshire.
Bat 'I assent to it with the strongest expression of my opi•
nion, that we should proceed en the principle of former years,
namely, that of placing this great and important interna-
tional question, not in private and individual hands, but un-
der the control and responsibility of the Executive Govern-
ment. I think, is obedience to that principle, we ought to
make our inquiry bond fide into the application of the Par-
liamentary grant for purposes which fall within the visita-
tion which Parliament has provided, adhering at the same
time to the; erms and spirit of those important enactments
which do not permit any Select Committee to depart from
that spirit and those terms. -- (Cheers.)
Mr. GRATTAN and Sir R. INoms rose together, and al-
though the latter Hon. Gentleman was strongly called for,
he gave way to the Hone Member for the county of Meath.
The Hon. Gentleman said he was surprised at the course
taken by the Government on this question; they were wrong
in their principles, their premises, and their conclusions.—(A
laugh.) Parliament came to a settlement—an Irish settle-
ment—when they thought Ireland was going over to France,
and now they thought she might go again in the same direc-
tion they again interposed. They knew nothing of what
they were about.—(A laugh.) ' It was said that Maynooth
educated such a superabundance of priests that 'it afforded a
supply for the continent; whereas the fact was, that of the
priests actually found necessary for the instruction of the
Roman Catholic population of Ireland, no fewer than 140
had been educated on the continent., They talked of loyalty;
what did they, mean by loyalty ? What. loyalty had their
ancestors shown to the unfortunate monarch James II.? As
to the oath of allegiance, the best oath of allegiance they
could administer ,to., the Roman Catholic clergy would be a
system of good government.. . . .
Sir It, a INGLIS said. that his Right Hon. Colleague,
while admitting that there was no compact or contract be-
tween the Imperial Legislature and the College of Maynooth
which at all precluded the Imperial Legislature from 'acting
as it might think fit towards that college, had prevented any.
They must take care what they did in the matter, because if
they withdrew the grant to Maynooth, they must also
re-arrange the whole ecclesiastical system in Ireland ; the
proposition had been vehemently cheered by the Gentlemen
sitting immediately behind his Right lion. Friend, because
they foresaw in it the further confiscation of the property of
that Church—,a confiscation begun some fifteen years ago,
and which they would fain complete. Confiscation, he
would readily believe, was not in the mind of his Right Hon.
Friend, but it was prominently in the mind of his Right
Hen. Friend's cheerers.—(Hear, hear.) His Right Han.
Friend spoke of Maynooth as having been established by
Act of Parliament, and so had the Great' Western Railway
or the Eastern Counties Railway; but Maynooth was not
so established till the last seven years. Afterwards he
admitted the case stood upon different ground, but up
to 18 55 there was no shadow of a foundation for the
claim as a right ; and now it was perfectly within the
discretion of Parliament to pass a Bill to repeal the Act.
But that was not the object of the present motion. The Se-
cretary of State for the Home Department, in a speech, the
language, tone, and manner of which were most temperate
and judicious, had clearly shown that the existing system
of visitatorial inquiry did not in the slightest degree touch
the object which the Hon. Member for North Warwickshire
wished to bring before the House—that it was limited almost
entirely -to the external fabric of the eetablishment, and did
not affect the vital. essence of the motion.--( Hear, hear.)
He (Sir. R. Inglis) objected to. the present motion, however,
that on the Ilth of May,.,with the prospect of a dissolution
imminent in the course of the next three weeks or a month,
it was not desirable to engage in such an inquiry as was con-
templated. . Still, when he saw that the leaders of both
parties and the Hon. Member for the county of Limerick
concurred in that motion, he should vote for it as a recogni-
tion 'of the principle of inquiry, though he believed that
nothing more could result from it this Session. .
Mr HUME. believed it was the sound policy of this
country to conciliate Ireland, and to remove all causes of
discontent, so as to make her, as she ought to be, a tower of
strength to England, instead of being, as she had been, a
source of weakness. The present proposition deserved a
much more serious consideration than it had received. It
was not a common inquiry that was proposed. We, had given
to the Irish people an establishment in which they might
educate priests for their own religion, but Parliament had
never prescribed to them in what manner they should teach.
..—(Hear.) For some time past they had been considering
how best to strengthen the dofoncea of the country, and, he
asked, was it wise at such a time to press this motion, see-
ing that every Irish Member who had spoken regarded it as
calculated to prornole increased discontent in that country ?
lie !waked upon the motion as most ill-timed and most un-
just, as tending to persecution and not to information, and
ho shOuld, therefore, vote against it.--(Hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON--Sir, I rise for the purpose of
stating very shortly the grounds why I constitute one of
those exceptions, which my Honourable Friend by me was
at a lobs to find, 'who is prepared not to agree to this motion.
It is my intention, if the House divides, to vote both
against the amendment and the original motion.—(Hear,
hear.) Sir, I think that this House is entering on a very
unwise and dangerousrourse.—(Hear, hear.) I think they
are entering ,on a course which, if a Committee be granted,
must either end in a nullity or in very dangerous conse-
quences. I think that no ground was laid for the motion of
ttie Honourable Member for North Warwickshire in the
speech which he made. I think, of that speech, that it
certainly does bring to mind the opinion entertained by
some, that .the shades of departed men are wont to hover
over the scenes of their earthly occupations •, and if the shade
of Dr. Duigenan had been hovering over this debate, I can
imagine the grim delight with which his spectre would have
surveyed the scene.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) I thought
we had got back to the times when the Catholic question
was debated, and that they were nos discussing , the inci-
dental and single question of the endowment of, the College
of Maynooth; for what was the line of argument which the
lion. Member for North Warwickshire adopted? Did he go
into any details of the system of education at Maynooth— of
a system of education peculiar to that establishment? Did
he tell us what were the doctrines inculcated by the lecturers
in what way the course of education was likely to defeat the
purposes for which the establishment was framed?. It he
did, I must confees that those parts of his speech did not
catch my attention, but I did hear long and elaborate dis-
sertations on the fundamental doctrines of the Catholic reli-
gion; I did hear quotations from writers whom the lion.
Gentlenaln described as the Bacons of the Catholic Church;
and I presume, therefore, that the main ground on which
this inquiry is proposed by him is, that he believes, and no
doute, sincerely, that, there are in the Catholic religion, or at
least in Catholic authorities, tenets which he considers to be
at variance with the welfare of 'a Protestant country. I do
not like -to enter into that question, but I am quite sure, it
that were a question fit to be _entered on, that it is not by
an inquiry into the College of Maynooth that it can be pro-
perlyone entertained.-(Hear, hear.) It was stated that
great evil intended to be remedied—an evil•which isascer-
tained still to be prevailing—is the power of llltrarnonta ne
and fOreign influences and authorities in Ireland. But, shall
we
,remedy that by abolishing the College of Maytnho: t_ he
and I am entitled to say that the withdrawal of
grant
from_ the -College of Maynooth is the object of those who
support this motion, because that was fairly' avowed
ut the
Noble Lord who seconded it.--(Hear, hear.) P
by the
question fairly. He said, "This is the first step; .and the
object I hadin yiew is the entire withdrawal chate grant,
aucl, the repeal of the existing law." '
the' result of that? You are to drive
.us Inen'lrisCisattlbice
priests to be educated' abroad; and will they
from, abroad less imbued with Ultratra
been
educated
Lane° tudoctrines
and foreign influences than if thesay d
absurd to suppose
at 'Maynooth? —(Cheers.) It
that such a result can arise from such a proceed-
ing. When we were told also that some of those
who are educated at Maynooth, instead of being employed
in Ireland, are sent elsewhere, I
-think that has been
answered by my Hon. Friend the Member for leadyo,
for the
who
showed that the total number of pries s re q uir
supply of Ireland was greater than the
con nuducmber educated
the Irish
at
Maynooth.—(Hear, hear.) As to the t of
bishops, with which great fault has so justly been found, I
cannot see the connexion between that and the endowment
of the College of Maynooth ; but we canaot
.shut our eyes
to the real cause of this motion, and to the real motives by
which it has been:suggested. This motion arises from the
feeling out of doors which- has been unfortunately raised
among the Protestant portion of the people of this country
at what I shall not shrink from characterizing as the aggres-
sive and violent proceedings of the Church of Rome.--
(Cheers.) I do not wonder that these proceedings should
have prochiced a
deep impression of resentment—nay, of
indignation, on the part
the Protestant portion of
a-
ttic community; but don't—because the Church of fh
Romeaa a
has done that of which the people of E
just right to complain—don't, I say, punish the Catho-
lic youth of Ireland who are intended for the priest-

hood.—(Hear,. hear.) I contend that it would ba rot
only unjust but impolitic to do so; because you would
thereby inflict an injury upon yourselves; you would aggra-
vate the very evil, one of the circumstances connected
with 1-hfch is the cause of the auger which is at present felt
in many parts %,!' the country.— (Hear, hear.) I must say
that this motion appears to me a motion of vengeaoce—
(Cheers).--and as a motion of vengeance I think it impolitic.
(Hear, hear.) And it is not only because it is a vin-
dictive motion that I think it an impolitic motion, but be-
cause it is at variance with all those principles of sound na-

_
tional policy upon which the Government and Parliament of
this country has hitherto acted in regard to this question. It
is upon that ground-- that broad and general ground - that
I am prepared to resist the motion which is now about to be
proposed to the House. My view of the question is not
altered by the very proper and honourable offer which has
been made by the Catholic Members of this House on the
part of the Catholic priesthood of Ireland, to lay the institu-
tion open to the fullest and freest inquiry. No ground, in
my opinion, has been laid for an inquiry at all at this parti-
cular moment. I don't dispute the right of the House to in-
quire. Any institution which is supported in any degree
by public money must submit to inquiry, if sufficient ground
this
slaid for making the inquiry. There may be ground in
th ing contend
Ivifjoicrhis,
has,th atn
beeno
case, or not ; lam not able to speak as to that. All I
groundatd
infotrheitcohuarsseboefenthelapidresiennatndye:
de-
bate. But, if inquiry be thought to be necessary, a Right
Friendthor
toyf
undermin e hasGovernment pointed
li
out
atphaahtl there e
o meaxkiisotgs an-
otherit
and I must say that in my humble opinion there is no ma-
chinery for making an inquiry
ob-
jectionable as a Committee of otiftethis kind so utterly
(Hear, hear.) 'Why, we should iimisefi of
Commons.—
(Hear,
upstairs, summoning before have fifteen gentlemen
them the different
officers of Maynooth, and examining •
to the varying fancy and
spiritng
of
according
each member of the Committee. Either the fi
iff'clairY of
inquiry would
be conducted with all that respectful abstinence
becomes an inquiry so deeply and intimately
connected V which
the religious opinions of men diff • ermg probably in creed
from their examiners, and, if so, you would not get a
results which the promoters of the motion wish
toatttan the
or it would be conducted upon a different principle, andci
then the result would be that you would have theological
inquiries, which must be highly offensive not only to the
persons examined but to those who belonged to the same
faith in Ireland; and I must say that in either case it
would be most unwise and most inexpedient that the
inquiry should be proceeded with.—(Hear, hear.) But
the people of Ireland will not believe that the mere motive
and object and effect of the motion, if carried, will be to
inquire into the College of Maynooth.—(Hear, hear.) They
will look upon it as the yielding of the House of Commons to
what, if it were Rot disrespectful so to call the prevalence of
sincere opinion, I would describe as afanatical cry.—(Hear.)
But the people of Ireland are clearsighted enough to see
that were-the --House of Commons to adopt this motion
they would be merely yielding to a popular fling
created by the circumstances of the moment, and if theyare
charitable enough not to think that the Members of this
House have yielded to that cry, or that many persons who
are going to vote for this motion have not been much moved
thereto by considerations of the approaching election, they
will be giving them greater credit than in my conscience I
think they desorve.—(Cheers and laughter.) I again say
that if any Members of this House shall call for a division
on this motion, I shall think it my duty to vote against it,
and that I earnestly hope, in spite of the handsome offer on
the part of the Catholic Members to submit the institution
to the fullest inquiry, the House will either resist the motion
altogether, or, if an inquiry be thought expedient, that that
inquiry will be conducted by the Commissioners appointed by
Government, because it is obvious that a subject of such a
delicate nature, involving questions so deeply affecting the
interests of a large portion of the community, is not a sub-
ject suited to the rough handling of the Members of a Select
Committe of this House.--(Cheers.)
Mr. Sergeant MURPHY moved the adjournment of the
debate.
The CH INCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he had
watched the debate with great attention, and it seemed to
him that it had one remarkable characteristic, and that was
that almost every speaker had been of the same opinion,
and, therefore, it seemed to him extremely advisable to
conclude the debate that night, if possible.—(Hear, , hear
and cries of "Adjourn I")
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL had some strong objections to
urge against the motion, and hoped the debate would be ad-
journed to afford him the opportunity of doing so.—(hear.)
Mr. REYNOLDS said he was anxious, on a great and
important question like that, to hear from the :Chief Se-
cretary, for Ireland, or in his absence the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman the Irish Attorney-th-ineral, some explanation of
the speech which had that night been delivered by the
Secretary of State for the Home Department. He wished
to know whether or not the opinions of, the organ of the
Irish Government in that House harmonised with the " No-
Popery" speech of the Home Secretary, because, after having
listened to that speech with attention and pain, he could not
help coinciding with the Noble Lord (Palmerston) in
thinking that the spirit of ancient and the worst times of
bigotry and intolerance had been revived in this discussion.
In conclusion, Mr. Reynolds said he should support the ad-
journment of the debate, and challenged the Hon. Member
for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) to fix an early day
for resuming it.
Mr. DRUAIMOND also supported the adjournment of the
debate. He was one of the few persons in that House who
had served an apprenticeship to the dulness and the endu-
rance of Dr. Duigenan ; but when this debate should be re-
sumed he would prove that a bigotry more fierce than Dr.
Duigenan's was now in full operation in Ireland—the fiercest
that ever Hildebrand delighted in, or the blackest times of
Popery had ever put in action.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. KEOGII, after some observations in favour of the
adjournuient of the debate, said that, as he had understood
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in what had fallen from
him at an earlier period of the evening, intended to repudiate
the sentiments which his lion. Friend (Mr. Osborne) had
attributed to him, in order that there might be no mistake on
the subject, he would read to the House the passage in the
Right lion. Gentleman's speech to which his Hon. Friend
alluded. The Right Hon. Gentleman was speaking on the
case of Ireland, upon a motion which was brought forward
by the Noble Lord the Member for London (LordJ. Russell).
The Right Hon. Gentleman stated that they had heard
great deal of Catholic associations, and anti-corn-law leagues,
and political unions; but those things were the consequecce
' of the people putting the government of the country into the
hands of those who did not know how to wield it; and then,
alluding to the Catholic question, observed—one said it was
a physical question, and another that it was spiritual. Now
it was the absence of an aristocracy, and then the absence of
railroads—it was the Pone one day, the potatoes the next.
But they had a starving population—an absentee aristocracy;
and what would the stern supporters of the Establishment
say, when the Right Hon. Gentleman added, an alien
church, in addition to the weakest of execu ives in the
world ? Any one reading of a country in that position, ob-
served the Right Hon. Gentleman, would say at once that
the remedy was revolution. But Ireland, he said, could
not have a 'revolution, .and why ? Because it was connected
with another and a more powerful country—her connexion
with England prevented revolution; and as revolution was
the only remedy, England Was placed in the odious posi-
tion of being the cause of all that misery. What, then, he
asked, was the duty of an English Minister? The Right
Hon. Gentleman was then ebgaged in the duty of hunting
down the man who was then a great English Minister
(Opposition cheers)—and was talking of Parliamentary
middle-men, who bamboozled one party and plundered the
, other, and called upon the House to put an end to Parlia-
mentary hypocrisy. Now, if the House still maintained the
inclination to put an end to a Parliamentary hypocrisy, they
would permit him (Mr. Keogh) to put an end to the repre-
sentation that the Hon. and Gallant blembbr had misrepre-
sented the Right Hon. Gentleman. But he would proceed—
" What was the duty of an English Minister? To effect by
his policy all those changes which revolution would effect by
force."—(['Tear, hear.)
The debate was then adjourned till Wednesday, the 19th
of May.
The Property and Income-tax Bill was further considered
in Committee, and ordered to be read a third time on Friday.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at Half-past Twelve o'clock.