The Sun.
London, England, 1853-02-23 00:00:00

the propagation of falsehood, then he (Sir W. Clay)
could only view the endowment of Maynooth as con-
nected with all other ecclei3iastical- endowmenti in Ire-
land—and from such inquiry the Church in Ireland
never could wholly escape—(hear, hear)--for he believed
that the history of no country contained a greater record
of wrong than that of the maintenance of the Estab-
lished Church in that country. The honourable mem-
ber for North Warwickshire abjured and repudiated any
inquiry into the merits of the system of education at
Maynooth or into alleged malversation• He was in-
clined to think the honourable merhber shrunk from the
investigation. By the terms of the motion, the honour
able member reduced the question to whether Maynooth
should receive endowment from the State, and, for his
part, he would only consent to a consideration of that
question if it was to be in common with every ecclesias-
tical endowment. (Hear, hear.) He would second the
amendment, and if that were rejected he would vote
against the motion of the hon. member for. North War-
wickshire.

.--- -
Colonel F. GREVILLE said it was under a sense of
great disadvantages that he rose for the purpose of ad-
dressing the house for the first time, especially when he
recollected the importance of the subject. The principal
objection urged against, the grant was that it had not
answered its purpose. If it were supposed by any one
when the grant was increased in 1845, that Roman Ca-
tholics were in consequence to sacrifice their principles,
and to conform to the wishes of Protestants, all he could
say was that that idea was altogether erroneous! Sir
Robert Peel took care to place that matter clearly be-
fore the house. He declared that he did not pretend to
say that the measure would produce permanent satisfac-
tion, or induce Roman Catholics to compromise a single
principle. (Hear, hear.) He (Colonel Greville) did not
consider the motion adapted. to increase the loyalty of
i
the people of Ireland, or to inspire confidence n the
legislation of that house ; and he could promise the hon.
gentleman that if he succeeded in his attempt to take
away this paltry grant he would find the people of Ire-
land united with regard to the Established Church.
_ .

In 1845, Sir Robert Peel, after remarking that he saw
a cloud in the far horizon of the west, and that if our
rights were invaded they mist be defended, observed
that in making that declaration he recollected with satis-
faction that the day before he had sent a message of
peace to Ireland. Such were the remarkable words 01
one whose name could never be mentioned in that house
without respect ; and they formed a strong contrast to
the declaration of the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) in
answer to a question on the previous day, that it was
not the intention of the Government to legislate foe Ire-
land on the footing of religious equality between Protes-
tants and Roman Catholics. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. MALL hoped the house would give him the indul-
gence which it usually extended to a new member who
first addressed it, and especially as he intended simply to
explain the grounds upon which he should give his vote on'
this question. It seemed they were all agreed that this
debate had hitherto been far from profitable, that the feel-
ings which had been excited were not the most genial, and
that, whatever might be the result, the country probably
would not be proud of their proceedings. (Cheers.) That
was the natural consequence of that house interferieg in
matters of religion, and whatever might be the irritation
under the affliction of speeches so lively as that of the hon.
member for North Warwickshire, they must admit there
,
was some ground laid by their past proceedings for bteng-
ing forward controversial topics once and again, until the 7
got rid of them for ever. He was glad the subject came
before the house now in a shape which would admit of his
giving a vote distinctly upon one of two principles. If he
voted with the hon. member for North Warwickshire,
granting that the State had a right to bestow endo ants
for religious purposes, he should affirm that it could my
do so if that religion was true, and thereby constitut the'
sent,
. State, or that house on the part of the State, a judge
between truth and error. If he voted with the hon.
member for Birmingham, he should simply mark his sense
of the impropriety of sustaining religious institutis by
State endowments. In the first case he aimed a blow) at a
.certain form of religious persuasion. In the last cue be
simply' expressed an objection to a certain mode of
sustaining it. As long as he was a member of that h9use,
and a representative of many persons of different
creeds,' he would not consent to give a vote designed
to have the effect, as authoritative as one vote could-
bo, of deciding-what was religious truth and what was
not. Deep as were his own convictions, he did not choose
to express there his opinions as to the comparative merits of
religiois systems or of religious creeds. Let those merits
be settled elsewhere by such processes as would touch the
matter in dispute—by reasons, by persuasions, and 14 the
lives of those who professed them. Law did not touch
them. All that they could do in regard to religious dis-
tinction in the way of law was to show their own intoler-
ance. They could not alter the nature of the case. Truth
was entirely independent of them, and he had very little
faith in that religion which did not include within i$ the
great principles of justice, and which did not exemplify in
all departments, political and ecclesiastical, the great
maxim of "Do unto others as ye would ,they should do
unto you." But if he was obliged to decide what wasltrue
and what was error—lf he was under the necessity of, dis-
tributing endowments to one or to the other—he confessed
he would rather give the money of the State in support of
error than in support of truth. (Ironical cheers from the
Opposition.) Honourable members were startled by that
declaration, but let them examine into it. He would far
rather do something to support by external means a bad
ystem than he would kill the vitality of a good ne.
(Hear.) The very last creed he should consent to en low
was his own creed. The very last form of religious re-
fession which he should wish to see receive the support of
the State was that to which he attached himself. Becluise
he had faith in its own inherent and vital powers, he laid,
" Protect it in the exercise of its rights, but do not attelmpi
to sustain it. Let it get its own living. Do not inte se
to nurse or to feed it. If you must give endowments, 'ye
those endowments to those who say they cannot do ith
out them. Give them to the moral heathen—give then
to those who cannot stand upon the strength of their owi
system—who are afraid to trust to their own creed—!aie
who say that, if the State should withdraw its supporting
band, then they are afraid that creed would not stand a
chance with the world," (Hear, hear.) Therefore, if ho.we.
cbliged to give—which he did not conceive he was at all
obliged to do—but if he was obliged to give some State
support to some form of religious persuasion, he would not
give it to the truth, but to that which the truth had to
overcome. (Hear.) He confessed he did entertain the
very strongest possible objection to the Maynooth College
Endowment Bill when introduced by Sir R. Peel's Govern-
ment. Hi wished to do his Government and those who
supported him all justice, and he believed they were in-
fluenced by motives both patriotic and pure. He believed
they intended that bill as one step towards religious equality
—that they intended to soothe the irritation of the Irish
people. He acknowledged the nobleness of the motives.
He regarded the measure itself as a fatal mistake, and as
having demonstrated its being a fatal mistake by events
which had subsequently taken place. Properly speaking,
it was not a step towards religions equality. Religious
equality had been too frequently spoken of, not only in
that house but elsewhere, as to be comprehended simply in
the provision that the priests and religious teachers of all
denominations should be put on the same footing as re-
garded the law of the Church or the support they receibed
from the State. There was a much wider sense in which
he understood the term. He regarded religious equality
comprehended likewise in the relation of the laity to the
priesthood, and he always looked upon it as an impolitic
and as a cruel thing to put the people of Ireland under
the power of the priesthood, as they did by the endow-
naent which they gave to Maynooth College. (Hear.) He
objected to endowments for the education of the priest
hood in the Protestant as well as in the Roman Cathelic
Church. He should say that the office of a religious teacher
was already one which exercised a large power over rho
consciences of those with whom he came in contact. But
though he regarded this act for the endowment of May-
nooth as opposed to the true idea of religious equality,!he
thought at the same time that it was calculated to soothe
the irritation of the Irish people. He would not, howevier,
go into that part of the subject, but would simply explain
the ground upon which he had given his vote. He would
fain get rid of this endowment, as well as of all ecclesiasti-
cal endowments whatever, but he would not consent to
mystify himself. Who; he would ask, brought this mot on
forward, and for what purpose ? What yas the end which
he should attain if he voted with the mover of the resolu-
tion before the home ? . How could he j estify it to his own
conscience, to take this step towards one class of her Ma-
jesty's subjects, when another larger and more powerful
class were enjoying still larger endowments? He would
not consent to be severe to the weak, and to show com-
placency to the strong. (Hear, hear.) He would not 'go
with Protestantism to do wrong, and he was not ashamed
at any time to stand by the side of Roman Catholiciim
when it did right. He would wish both to stand on thbir
own merits, and that neither should have the support of
the State, each exercising their iuherent power and vitality
for both of them contained some portion of truth, so that
they might bring their power to bear on the best interests
of the people at large.
Mr. BALL said that in consequence of one or two ob-
servations which had been made by the hon. member who
had just sat down, he was induced to trespass for a very
few minutes on the indulgence of the house. He did not
know whether he had exactly understood the meaning
which the hon. gentleman intended to convey, but if he
followed up his words by his acts, he would display greater
acrimony against the Roman Catholics than any one -who
had preceded him in the debate. The hon. gentleman said
that if ho had to maintrin a religion, he would prefer
maintaining a bad religion.
Mr. MIALL explained that what he said was that, if he
had to give State endowment to religion, he would rather
give them to an erroneous than a truthful system • or,
in other words, that he would rather give external 'suPl
tort to a
hear )
bad cause, than kill the vitality of a good one.
war,
' )trr. BALL quiteunderstoodthat the hon member would
rather endow error than truth. That being the case, he
inust go into the division lobby with the hon. member for
North Warwickshire, or by affirming the endowment he
Would
call the Roman Catholicreligion erroneous. (Cheers
and laughter from the Opposition benches.) , He put it to
the house whether anything
which' had been said by the
hen. member for North Warwickshire - the
inference so severe as
inference which was to be drawn from the intended vote
of the hon. member for Rochdale? The hon. gentleman
had made another statement which he confessed he (Mr.
Ball) was not' able to understand. The hon.
gentleman
considered that the result of the debatewould be one which
the country would have no reason to be proud of, why
not ? Did he mean that the grant would' be continued?
If so, he (Mr. Ball) agreed that the country would not be
pleased or gratified at- the conclusion to which the honk©
esight come. The hon. member for the Tower Hamlets
said that the grant ought not to be discontinued because a
compact was made by Parliament in 1845. But what said
the noble lord the member for the city of London the other
night ? He believed the noble lord was no longer Secretary
of State for Foreign Aflairs, but he was willing to give
him as honourable an appellation as possible, and therefore
he would call him the odd man of the Ministry. (A laugh.)
%s hat did the noble lord say the other night when speaking
on the subject of the clergy reserves? He declared that it
was as competent for the Parliament of 1853 to reverse
what had been done by the Parliament of 1840, as it was
for the latter to reverse the acts of the Parliament of 1701.
Surely then the Parliament of 1853 might undo what had
been done by the Parliament of 1845. As an
argu-
ment for the passing of that measure, it was stated
that it was desirable that the members of the Irish
Priesthood should be brought up in their own country
rather_ than in the schools of foreign countries, which might
not cherish love or amity towards Great Britain. It was
bauepaport_se!l„th..at a kindlier feeling would' be created in the
would
_"1 twiaa Irish clergy towards this country, but he
it
was not naZ hetker this result had followed, and whether
notorious that the reverse had been the conse-
quence ? If then the act of 1845 had not accothplished its
object, he thought it 'was fair for the mover to argue that
the grant ought to be taken away, If he were to consult

his own private feelings he should vote for its continuance.,
for he had received greater kindness from Roman Catholics

than from members of the Church of England. But, be-
lieving that the object of the act had failed, he should feel
bound to support the motion.
Mr. DUFFY was glad the hon. member for North War-
wickshire had made some additions to his case this year.
He had quoted extracts from seven Irish newspapers and
one English periodical. Now, 'he knew something of Irish
newspapers, and he was ready to take issue with the hOn.
member on the only portion of the evidence which had not
been already answered in that house. The hon. gentleman
quoted extracts from these seven newspapers as illustra-
tions of the results of education in the College of Maynooth.
Now, he affirmed that there was not one of these
newspapers which was not a thorough partisan against
the Irish priesthood. (Hear, hear.) If he read their names
in Ireland it would be enough. They were notorious and
common calumniators of Ireland, and if they had not been
answered, it was because nobody in Ireland ever thought
them worthy of an answer. (Cheers.) The honourable
gentleman had also quoted some extracts from Sir Francis,
Head's book on Ireland. Sir Francis Head spent a fort-
night in Ireland, one week of which was spent in travelling,
and the other in pondering over the evidence which he had
collected. (A laugh.) As he (Mr. Duffy) had the oppor-
tunity of testing two or three of his statements, under the
heading of priests' speeches, he would communicate the
result to the house. In three cases the ferocious priests
named and quoted by Sir F. Head were Presbyterian minis-
ters. (A laugh.) In another case, the extract was so atro-
cious that Sir F. Head would not venture to give the
priest's name ;he styled him the Rev. Mr. --. The
atrocious sentiment attributed to this anonymous priest
was this :—" I am descended from farmers, and the time
will come, I trust, when it will be as hard for an extermi-
nating landlord to get into Parliament as for a camel to
pass through the eye of a needle." Now this was an ex-
tract from a speech of his (Mr. Duffy's) own. (Great laugh-
ter.) So much for the extracts from Sir F. Head's book.
With regard to the English periodical, the Rambler, he
would ask how Protestant gentlemen would like to be
made responsible for a Protestant Rambler, edited by the
honourable member for North Warwickshire. (Hear.) All
he could say was, that he did not read the Rambler, and
that he repudiated its doctrines. (Hear.) He thought he
might now pass by the extracts, and come to the gist of
the question. What did hon. members want to get done
by supporting the motion ? Did anybody expect that the
withdrawal of the grant would prevent the teaching of
the Catholic religion or the training of the Irish priests ?
Honourable gentlemen ought to know that when it
was martyrdom for Irish Roman Catholic priests to teach
in Ireland, there was no lack of them to do their duty and.
to 'take the consequences. He did not think that less con-
. venient accommodation would deter men from teaching who
would face mai Lyrdom to do so. The hon.' member for North
Warwickshire might recollect that there were Irish priests
when there was no Maynooth, and he did not think it wholly
impossible that the President of the United States, or the
new Emperor of the French, might be glad- to renew the
relations which formerly subsisted between those countries
and the Irish priesthood. According to Sir Francis Head,
the Emperor Napoleon was the best friend that England
had, while the Irish priests were her greatest enemies ;
would it mot be a good thing to send them to him, that
he might teach them to become friends to England. It
never could be expected, he warned honourable gentlemen
of this, that if so small a sum as this were refused to the
Catholics of Ireland, they would go on paying fot the
Establishment which instigated this very movement ; and
he, for one, said that if the house affirmed the proposition
before it, the Irish Church Establishment must speedily fall ;
that when they withdrew the endowment from Maynooth,
from that hour he should hold himself bound not to pay
another shilling of tithe. And what was the use of what
they were doing ? If they could not stop the teaching of the
Catholic Church in Ireland, was it worth while, or wits it
right to insult the Catholics ? Did it become a grave Parlia-
ment, with grave business to do, to spend a day or two every
year in going through this farce ? Nobody believed this
motion would pass ; then why was it brought forward? In
point' of fact they were assailing some two dozen ecclesias-
tics ; and a grave senate, year after year, set up these men
as a target to fling imputations upon • but he knew these
men, and he. knew that they had made Maynooth one of
best ecclesiastical seminaries in the world. In history, in
philosophical and biblical literature, in ecclesiastical history,
they had published books and essays which had been found
most valuable and would endure. As for the students and
their politics, he was sorry to say that the politics of their
professors were much more in accordance with the senti-
ments of the house than with his or with those of the ho-
nourable gentlemen who sat about him. He eaid, then, that
he did not think this motion would pass. He saw Parlia-
ment at last learning, and ready to admit, that it is only
by consulting the wishes of the people to be legislated for
that legislation can have any success. He saw this at the
Cape of Good Hope ; the colonists had declined to accept
convicts ; Parliament had acceded to their'wishes' and in
so doing had done rightly. In Van Diemen's Land the
same ; and now there was a bill before the house which
embodied the principle once more, and to which he should
give his most hearty. support—the Clergy Reserves gill.
They had tried in Canada the same experiment as in
Ireland, setting province against province, religion against
religion, Celtic Canada against Saxon. And now, when
they had seen its failure, when they applied to distant
colonies kwiser system, he begged them to let that same
system extend and' be 'applied to Ireland. (Hear, hear.)
he hoped that they would say, We mean to do in Ireland
as we have done in Canada, in Van Diemen's Land, and at
the Cape—to consult the wishes of the people in our legis-
lation for them.
Sir J. YOUNG hoped that without offence to Mr.
Spooner, for whom he entertained the highest respect, he
might be allowed to state the deep regret he felt that the
honourable gentleman had brought forward the proposi-
tion before the house—a useless and irritating proposition,
that could not be attended by any good consequences, and
that could not fail to add to those feelings of alarm and
discontent on religious subjects, and to those feelings of
sectarian animosity which had had such calamitous results
in Ireland. At the same time he was not surprised that
it had been brought forward. Certainly a portion of the
press in Ireland, and a portion of the gentlemen who took
part in politics there, had not used language to calm the
anxieties or soften the asperities which had been alluded
to. But those gentlemen represented the feelings only of
a small minority. They did not represent the Irish
nation. (Hear, hear.) The honourable member for
North Warwickshire based his arguments on two grounds
—one, that he objected to the principle, another that
the Roman Catholics by their misconduct at the recent
elections had disentitled themselves. The hon. member
stated that the principle on which Maynooth was founded
was subversive of religion, hostile to loyalty, incompatible
with the allegiance due to the constitution. He would draw
the hon. member's attention to the argument of an English
bishop in 1798, as it appeared in a letter addressed by him
from Ireland to Lord Castlereagh. That bishop said he
thought it a most unwise measure to suffer the education
of the Roman Catholic clergy to return to its old course,
and be conducted abroad, the consequence of which would
be, that they must go to nations, perhaps hostile, and run
the risk of adding 'civil to religious prejudices in this way.
Surely the matter had been well considered. The subject
was reviewed in 1800. It underwent ample discussion in
1808. Undei the administrations of Mr. Pitt and of Mr.
Perceval, whose Protestantism would not be doubted, the
system was considered. In 1846, when it was decided by
Sir Robert Peel to put the college on a new basis, the Duke
of Wellington, in the House of Lords, spoke to the same
effect. The ground on which Maynooth was endowed was
not the ground of kindness to the Roman Catholics, it was
the ground of imperial policy. It was to prevent those
priests who, in times past, in times present, and—even if
you abolish Maynooth tc-morrow—in times future, will
still exercise great influence over the minds of the people
of Ireland—it was to prevent them from acquiring foreign
impressions and ITltramontane opinions. That the founda-
tion of this college was beneficial in point of policy was an
opinion endorsed by Grattan, whom no one exceeded in
knowledge of his country and loyalty to the throne. Sir
Robert Peel, when called upon to deal with the question,
found the supply of books insufficient, that of food even
scarcely enough. To eke out their small means it was
necessary to lengthen the vacations, and to send young men
home for longer than was right before they had completed
their education, and before they had gone through all that
training which was necessary to fit them for the trials and
the celibacy of a priest. What Sir R. Peel had done was
well known. The hon. member said this measure had not
been received with gratitude by Ireland. Sir R. Peel said
it was received with as much gratitude as he expected—
(laughter)—with as much as he or any other statesman
ought to have expected., (Hear, hear.) He (Sir J. Young)
believed at this moment there were tens of thousands. of
Roman 'Catholics in Ireland whose hearts beat more
warmly towards England for this grant to Maynooth, and
even if this were not yet so, they might depend upon' it
that, ultimately, ingratitude and suspicion must be over-
come by constant kindness. But then the hon. member
had said the Roman Catholics have disentitled themselves
to any further favour at our hands by their misbehaviour
at the late elections. He was not prepared to deny or
defend what took ploce at many of those elections. But
he would ask them not to be hasty in condemning, butto
look at the circumstances under which the recent elections
in Ireland occurred. Great excitement had been prevailing
in England ; and in many cases in Ireland, contests were
entered into by gentlemen who, in his opinion, were them-
selves morally responsible for what took place, since they,
rashly, and with their eyes open, without any chance of
success, except by the most unconstitutional means, had
started a needless and irritating opposition. The man who
did so was morally guilty of any excess that took place ;
and there were such men in more than one county in Ire-
land. Then, just before the election, there appeared a
proclamation against Roman Catholic prooessions—(hear)—
which appeared so ill-timed to the Roman Catholics in Ire-
land, that they at fist thougt it neither more nor less
than an electioneering squib. There were also the riots at
'Stockport, in which Roman Catholics had been•grosaly
ill-
treated, and even their chapels broken into and sacked.
But what use had the honourable member made of the ex-
citement to which he had referred ? There were about
3,000 Roman Catholic priests in Ireland, and the honour-
able member had produced ten or twelve cases out of the
whole of that number to support his views. If the
honourable member really meant to change 'the whole
priesthood and people of Ireland, he had evidently pro-
duced most inadequate proofs. (Hear, hear.) He (Sir J.
Young) was not disposed to favour the priests, but he was
there to do justice as far as lay in his power, and he must
say that the honourable member with those few cases had
not succeeded in making out his charge against the large
body of the priesthood. But the honourable member came
forward as a religious instructor and inculcated upon the
house high moral precepts ; he had even quoted Scripture,
and had spoken of the small number of those that were
saved. But Scripture could be quoted against as well as
by the honourable member ; and he (Sir J. Young) would
beg to recall to his recollection the case of a great city
which was about to be destroyed for its sins, and to suffer
the
asking of the Almighty, and a man became wearied
"I lung for pardon on account of it before the Divinity
I;eoersaeudseSocrif potnuereg,ooadndpeinrssotzdhoefwb:sinprg
w" weary; of granting it. But the hon. gentlemen re-
erie)aa
rdeyd tot
to
pardon e
ma lnl
all because there were a few bad. ("Oh, oh," and cheers.)
The honourable member had argued as if this fund came
from exclusively Protestant sources, and as if it were
3 free gift for the purposes for which it was
designed. Bat let it be recollected that there were
in Ireland 3,500,000 or 4,000,000 of Roman Ca-
tholics, and in England a smaller number, say that
It would not be wron
there were altogether 5,000,000 of Roman Catholics
in the Empire'
these Roman Catholics paid 15,000.000 i. to say that
oi., 7,000,0001.
to. the taxes of the country ; and out of that
large sum which was held by them, would the hon. mem-
ber refuse them so small a pittance of 30,0001. for the edu-
cation of their clergy. (Hear, hear) ? He (Sir J. Young)
did not look upon this as a question of money, but as a
question of policy, the soundness of which had been proved
by the experience of a long course of Years, and which had
been sanctioned by, sonic of the wisest statesmen that' Eng-

land:had ever produced. (Hear, hear.) It was a policy
which had been adopted by the far-seeing, to their own
honour and to the advantage of their country ; but if they
looked back upon history they would find that it was a
policy which had been forced upon the bigotted and near-
sighted in hours of difficulty and emergency. The lan-
guage of the hon. member was such as to lead to the con-
clusion that he was not indisposed to persecute Roman
Catholics if he could. It was fortunately not in the
power of the hon. member to shut up any one in prison
for promulgating his opinions, but it would seem that he
was not wanting in the will to do so. (Hear, hear.) It
was not in his power to prevent Sir R. Kane from oc-
cupying the honourable position of head of a college, or
Chief Baron Pigot from being an ornament of the bench ;
but he was disposed to go as far as he could, and denied to
the clergy whom those men respected. that stipend which
appeared indispensable for providing them with a suitable
education ; and so far he insulted the feelings of the
educated and wealthy Roman Catholics of Ireland. (Hear.)
And now let it be supposed for a moment that this grant
were repealed. What followed ? Why should not the
cases which the hon. member had produced of miscon-
duct on the part of Roman Catholic clergy tell with tenfold
force against the paid chaplains of gaols and work-
houses, and regiments? Was the hon. member going
to put: an end to this grant, and then to stop short ?
Of course not. This was but the beginning of a retrograde
policy—(hear, hear)—a policy which experience had
long since condemned ; for if ever in the annals of the
world there was a policy which bore upon it the stamp of
discomfiture and defeat, it was that policy which had ex-
isted in Ireland during the greater part of the last century,
which was the cause, as he verily believed, of the greater
part of the evils which now afflicted that unhappy land,
and which the hon. member now sought to restore. (Hear,
hear, and cheers.) It was undoubtedly right and natural
that in countries where representative government pre-
vailed, the opinion of the majority should preponderate
over that of the minority : but it was not consistent with
justice that the majority should in all cases repudiate all
regard for the opinions of the minority ; and yet that was
what the hon. member wanted the house to do. As the
Raman Catholics were the minority and the Protestants
the majority, the latter, according to the hon. member,
were justified in disregarding the opinions and convictions
of the former. (Hear, hear.) He (Sir J. :Young) would
only refer, in conclusion, to words uttered in the House of
Lords in 1846 by one whom every man in that house would
admit to be one of the greatest warriors and wisest states-
men that ever adorned this country. The Duke of Wel-
lington, who certainly could not be charged with being
deficient in loyalty, had used these words in the House of
Lords when advocating the endowment of Maynooth
" There is a great religious principle involved in thi.4 mea-
sure, namely, the principle of abstaining from persecution.
My lords, you are 'strong ; abstain from persecuting the
weak. , It is your, duty to give effect to this Christian
principle, and to abstain from even the appearance of per-
secution." Such were the words of the Duke of Wel-
lington when enforcing the increase of the grant to 'May-
nooth. He (Sir J. Young) would appeal to the Protestant
representatives of this empire. Protestants were irre-
sistible in wealth and in intelligence. Let them not
forget their own strength and the weakness of others.
It might be that past concessions had not been received
with the gratitude which they had a right to expect ;
but let them go forward in their own strength, walking in
the glorious light of their pure faith. Let them adopt the
principle of toleration, not as a mere profession, not as a
lip service, but in truth and in practice, and let them avoid
even the appearance of persecution, by rejecting, as he
trusted that a large majority of the hous'e would reject,
the unworthy and Ungracious motion of the' honourable
member. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) -
Mr. STANHOPE said that in the course of the argu-
ments which had been brought forward upon this question
in 1845, it had been contended that if once the principle
of maintaining this college were allowed, it was bad
economy to maintain it in a parsimonious manner, and
they had been told that, under a mere liberal system, the
Roman Catholic priests would change their previous policy.
Now, he would'ask what had been their course of proceed-
ing during the eight years' experience which we had had
of Sir R. Peel's measure up to the present time ? We had
given with a liberality which the Roman Catholics them-
selves had been highly gratified with. But he would ask,
had that liberality been received with gratitude? (Hear,
hear.) He would not dwell on the conduct of those rev-
erend gentlemen during the late elections, but he mist
say that he thought it unfortunate that the accusations
which were known, not only in this country but all over
Europe, should. have been so totally disregarded as to in-
duce every one in this country to believe that they must
be true. The Secretary for Ireland had not denied their
truth, but he had said that considerable-allowance must
be made. He (Mr. Stanhope) was unwilling to take any
of these cases, occurring- in a period of excitement and in
the tumult of elections, •as proving the case against
the Roman Catholic priests ; but he did say that if
they found these reverend gentlemen, contrary to the
rules of their sacred calling, exciting a mob at the
polling booths, and that that conduct was not noticed
and repudiated, by their superiors, these exceptional
cases must no longer remain on their own merits, but be-
come a strong ground of accusation. You could not take
up an Irish newspaper without seeing in it a letter from
some of these rev. gentlemen, to the effect that there could
be no hope for Ireland until the Established Church were
swept away. It had been said that if this grant were
withdrawn the College of Maynooth would still continue ;
but his answer to that was, that with the existence of the
college, provided it was endowed from Roman Catholic
funds, they had nothing as Protestants to do. At all
events, objecting to the grant, as the majority of the peo-
ple of this country did, upon religious grounds, and as
having failed in accomplishing the objects for which it was
originally instituted, and seeing that of late years attempts
had been made to strengthen the influence of Rome over
the Catholics of Ireland, and also to set up a similar influ-
ence in England, he thought the Protestant public ought
no longer to be called upon to support an institution
I wrong in principle and founded upon error.
Mr. FAGAN then (12 o'clock) moved the adjournment
of the debate, which, after some cries of " Divide," was
agreed to, and the debate was understood to stand ad-
journed till this day (Wednesday).
PUBLIC-HOUSES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Mr. MACKENZIE moved for and obtained leave to
bring in a bill for the better regulation of public-houses in
Scotland.