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 ecclesiastical endowments 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 f greaterthe reerd
of wrong than that of the maintenance
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 member shrunk from the
investigation. By the terms of the motion, the honour-
able member reduced the question the whetherto_tate,and, for his
Maynooth
should receive endowment from S.
part, he would only consent to a consideration of that
question if it was to be in co mmon with every ecclesias-
ical endowment. (Hear, hear.) He would second the
tamendment, 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
the people of Ireland, or to inspire confidence in 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 must 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 of
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 for Ire-
land on the footing of religious equality between Protes-
tants and Boman Catholics. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. MIALL 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 interfering 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 bring-
ing forward controversial topics once and again, until they
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 endowments
for religious purposes, he should affirm that it could only
do so if that religion was tree, and thereby constitute the
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 institutions by
State endowments. In the first case he aimed a blow at a
certain form of religious persuasion. In the last case he
simply expressed an objection to a certain mode of
sustaining it. As long as he was a member of that house,
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
be, 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
religious 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 by 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 indepehdent of them, and he had very little
faith in that religion which did not include within it 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 was true
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 one.
(Hear.) The very last creed he should consent to endow
was his own creed. The very last form of religious pro-
fession which he should wish to see receive the support of
the State was that to whichhe attached himself. Because
he had faith in its own inherent and vital powers, he said,
" Protect it in the exercise of its rights, but do not attempt
to sustain it. Let it get its own living. Do not interpose
to nurse or to feed it. If you must give endowments, give
those endowments to those who say they cannot do with-
out them. Give them to the moral heathen—give them
to those who cannot stand upon the strength of their own
system—who are afraid to trust to their own creed—and
who say that, if the State should withdraw its supporting
hand, then they are afraid that creed would not stand a
chance with the world." (Hear, hear.) Therefore, if ho was
obliged 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 troth, 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. He 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 tai place. Properly speaking,
it was not a step towards religious equality. Religious
equality had been too frequently spoken of, not only in
that house but elsewhere, a 9 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 received
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-
ment which they gave to Maynooth College. (Hear.) He
objected to endowments for the education of the priest
heed in the Protestant as well as in tit* Roman Catholic
Church. Ho should say that the office of a religious teacher
was already one which exercised a large power over the
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, however,
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 motion
forward, and for what purpose ? What was the end which
ho should attain if he voted with the mover of the resolu-
tion before the how*? How could he justify 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 Catholicism
when it did right. He would wish both to stand on their
own merits, and that neither should have the support of
the State, each exercising their inherent 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 he had to maintrin a religion, he would prefer
maintaining a bad religion.
hadto
r. MIALL explained that what he said was that, if he
give State endowment to religion, he would rather
give them to an erroneous than a truthful stem •or
in other words, that he would rather give externalsY
snp-
(Hrt to bad cause, than kill the vitality of a good one.
ear, hear.)
Mr. BALL quiteunderstood that the hon member would
• rather endow error than truth. That being the case, he
must go into the division lobby with the hon. member' for
Warwickshire, North by affirming the endowment he
would call the Roman Catliolic religion erroneous. (Cheers
and laughter from the Opposition benches.) He put it to
the house whether anything which had been said by the
hon. member for North Warwickshire was so severe as the
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 confer he (Mr.
Ball) was not able to understand. The hon, gentleman
considered that the result of the debatewonld be one which
the country would have no reason to be proud of. Why
not ? Did ho 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 house
might 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 Affairs, 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.)
What 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 1791.
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
; ' )giii).posed that a kindlier feeling would be created in the
,-h is of the Irish clergy towards this country, but he
wo ask whether this result had followed, and whether
sit.wa not notorious that the reverse had been the conse-
. -, . gneic ? If then the act of 1845 had not accomplished its
-.--7,40bij0 lie thought it was fair for the mover to argue that
at ought to be taken away. If he were to consult
, - 1
4 /
i