The Sun.
London, England, 1853-02-24 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENINCT, FEBRUARY 24, 1853.

of "No Popery" from the Rotunda and Exeter-hall,
would have been unceasing. A stop ought to be put to
such occasion for the display of religious intoler-
.ance, and he almost regretted that something:, like
a statute of limitations could not be passed to
determine at what point the Lord George Gordon argu-
ments, which were usually imported into discussions of
this nature, should be brought to a final clOse. Vast
changes had taken place since the Maynooth" grant was
increased in 1845. Famine and pestilence had visited
Ireland—sedition had overtaken some ofher younger sons,
while, lastly, a cry of Papal aggression had spread dismay
from one end of her shores to the other,' but none of
these evils were attributable to the resistance of this
grant. They were rather to be traced to a system of
misgovernment ; but Ireland was now entering upon a
new state of things, and he therefore regretted the more
the introduction into the legislature of topics of a
polemical character. Such discussions could lead
to no good result, and since it was acknow-
ledged that, for a time at least, the act of 1845
settled the question, he hoped they should hear very few
such speeches as that which they heard last night on
the introduction of this motion. ;The feelings of the Ro-
man Catholics must be respected ; and if the house
wished to extend the blessings of a liberal Government,
and to cement the union that existed between the three
sections of the United Kingdom, viz., England, Ireland,
and Scotland the house must set its face against the
sentiments of religious intolerance which these debates
were calculated to inspire.
Lord STANLEY thought it was desirable that this
debate should close to-day, because every day and every
hour that tliis question was kept open tended to incense
those feelings of religious animosity which the establish-
ment of the Maynooth grant was intended to allay. IXe
could not, however, allow the debate to close without
expressing his opinions upon the motion as a
tnember of the late Government. He felt bound to give
the motion his reluctant opposition. The grant was
adopted as a compromise in 1845, and it would be an
act of injustice to abolish it now. Since before that
period the grant was made annually, but from the time
of the Union down to 1845, no Parliament undertook to
refuse it, and the Legislature, in his opinion, did right
in placing the grant upon such a footing as to prevent a
recurrence to those angry and irritating discussions
which generally attended the annual vote of the grant.
The Maynooth College was the same now that it was in
1845, but supposing that it was not so, there was no
condition attached to the grant. The grant was made
upon the understanding that it was not only to be un-
conditional, but that it should be permanent, and for his
part he was bound•to confess that as yet he had heard no
good reason why he should now vote for its absolute and
unconditional repeal.
Mr. LUCAS expressed his opinion most decidedly
both against the amendment and the original resolution.
No Roman Catholic could vote for either ; but at the
same time that he said this, he was bound to add that
the temper of the speech of the hon. member who moved
the amendment was in far better taste than that of
the hon. member for North Warwickshire. It was
a feeling of bigotry, however, which dictated both the
amendment and the original motion, and the same op-
position-to Catholicity as much pervaded the one as the
other. • The amendment did not put the question of the
Maynooth grant. The honouralle member who
proposed it talked of the grant being a beg-
garly grant of 30,0001. a-year, and called upon
the Roman Catholic members to reject it, be-
cause it was not: worth the gratitude which it en-
abled this country to claim of Ireland. But for his part
he for one denied that any gratitude was due ; the grant
was only an instalment of a great act of justice which
the British Legislature had so long denied to Ire-
land. Do away with such grants as the Re-
gium Donum, and that gigantic robbery, the
Established Church of Ireland, and he should be
quite ready to give up this Maynooth grant. Those
who proposed motions of this nature, it appeared to
him, went upon the principle of taking what they could
get, and sticking to it when they got it—(a laugh)--7
but such a principle was rotten at the core,
and sooner or later must break down. (Cheers.)
The Maynooth grant was not conceived in a
spirit of liberality, but of State policy ; and as this mo-
tion for its repeal came from the tail or fag-end of a
party, it was impossible that it could pass. One object
of Sir Robert Peel in making this grant permanent was
to put a stop to angry discussions like this. In
this respect the object had failed but those
who proposed such a resolution as this knew
very well that the legislation of the country could
not be carried on. He had, therefore, no fears of the
passing of this resolution. With regard to the opinions
which the hon. member for North Warwickshire ex-
pressed last night, it would be treating them with too
much respect to condescend to answer them. One
would suppose, from the tone of the hon. member
for North Warwickshire, that the Roman Catholip
religion was a thing which had recently dropped from
the moon, but he was too obedient a child to that church
—(a laugh)—to lower himself so much as to answer to
the aspersions which had been so freely cast upon her in
the course of this debate. (Hear, hear.) Let
there be a case made out against the
administration of the Maynooth grant, he should by
quite ready to vote for a committee of inquiry, but until
then,he must resist all motions of this nature. (Hear.)

Mr. DitUMMOND said his constituents had re-
quested him to vote for this motion, but he should
do no such thing. (A. laugh.) He would be
no party to an act of injustice ; - but though
he could not vote for this motion, he thought the
people of this country had a right to complain of such

in cii as Paul Cullen and his master, the Pope. The religion
which they preached was this—they said there was no
other true religion but their own, and that all other
forms of worship but their own was heretical, and every
means used for suppressing it would be perfectly justifiable'.
Now, for a man who professed such a doctrine as that tp
talk about religious 'toleration, was little better than a
fraud, and he hoped the house would treat the liberalism
of such speakers as the last with the disregard that its
sincerity merited. He found just as much fault with
the doctrines taught by the Jesuits ; he denied
that so far as this part of the question was
concerned, that it partook at all of a religious
character, it was a question not only of religion, but of
liberty, and one which affected the freedom of thought
throughout the world ; and since the doctrines of the
Jesuits, which were so inimical to civil and religious
freedom, were taught in Maynooth, there ought at
least to be an inquiry into the mananag.
ment of that establishment. (Cries of "Hear, hear.")

Lord CLAUD HAMILTON, amidst some impa
tience, moved the adjournment of the debate.
Mr. MOORE said the hon. member for Meath had
curtailed his remarks upon the understanding that the
division was to be called to-night,
Sir R. H. INGLIS said if the motion for adjournment
was carried, he must take the opportunity of protesting
against the language which the honourable member,
for Meath had applied to the Church`of England as by
law established.

Mr. LUCAS disclaimed any intention or desire
to hurt the feelings of any follower of thq
Established , Church. What he said he meant to,
apply to the Irish Church as an establishment, and note
to the doctrines which it taught. •
After a few words from Mr. CLAY,
Mr. Sergeant SHEE said he agreed with the hon.•
member for Meath in many questions 2 • but he begged
it, to be distinctly understood that the hon. member did:
not express his own and his friends feeling upon the;
matter, when he declared that the Established Church,
of Ireland was a robbery conceived in fraud. (Cheers.),
The motion for the adjournment of the debate was,
then put from the chair, and negatived without a division.,
The house then divided on the original motion, when!
there appeared=

For the motion
Against it

Majority against 3O
Mr. Spooner's motion was accordingly rejected, but
there was no time to put the amendment, it being past
six o'clock.
The house then adjourned at a quarter past six.