The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-03 00:00:00

r of Ireland at the present day and the clergymen of en
earlier period. That fact had been admitted by the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman for Dahlia himself, in his
deace given Lease a Committee of the House in the year
1825. The Hon. and Lesr:ol Gentleman spoke as fol.
lows on that occasion :—" The priests who were educated in
France were old, I may say, when I became a man. They
had a natural abhorrence of the French Revolution, which had
borne so much on the Catholic clergy. They were strong
anti-Jacobins. By this means there were among them a
' good deal of what were called ultra-royalists, but with the
priests educated in Maynooth the arei Jacobin feeling
was dying away. They are more identified with the
people, and they do not come within the phrase of loyal-
ists so much as the priests educated iu France." Mr.
Dennis Browne stated in his evidence that " the Catholic
priests of Ireland were not the same men they were when
he first knew them;" and Mr. highs said, that "in his
journey through Ireland be had found the old foreign
educated priests of that country gentlemen, and men of
frank and easy deportment and general information, but by
no means in general such good Catholics as their brethren
cf Maynooth. 'The latter were men of stiff and rti-1 (ha
rectors, and Ilnugh they mig-lit be men vorsed in tueology,
they were profoundly ignorant of all that could leader
the mind more liberal. Ti.ey wiire but zealots in religion
and men full of a sense cf their own consequence. He
bad no doubt that the change originated in the system
pursued at Maynooth. It was that syste n which made
the priests agitators ; and if at present a foreigu educated
pariah pr:e,t happened to be too literal minded a man and
less a hater of PrAestantA, a substitive was
sent in his stead ready het from Mayncoth, and the
old priest was virtually disgraced." These extracts
would prove the evil consequences cf the system pursued
in Mayncoth. In no country in Europe—not even in
Spain—was the spirit of Popery so intensely anti- Protes• ant
as in Ireland; and it was most important to the tiviliz
ti )n and ppace of that country that a better order of Ca-
, tholio pri_sts should be c titlithel. Intimidation had
been irel to an unpi rallcicd extent by the priests in Ire-
land at the elections of 1835. Patties were held up t 3
execration, and denounced from the al'ar in consequence
cf t9e votes they had given. That was a system perfectly
consistent with the doctrines inculcated at Mayeeorli ; but
he would ask the Home and the people of this country if
they would allow such a system to be continued. No one
wished that any man professing the Roman Catholic faith
should be, after the Act of 1829, in a worse posi-
tion than a Protestant. They were placed, wisely
as he thought, on the same footing, but he com-
plained that the priests should be allowed to deneunce
from the altars those who exercised as they thought fit
fieir eisil rights. Other Roman Catholic States had
peremptorily forbidden those excommunications on matters
of a temporal nature, and they were neither t;lerated in
AuAris, Prussia, or France. No man in those countries
voted use reFgion fur any other the i religious purposes.
He conceived that the principles of the Roman Catholic
pr ests of Ireland proceeded from the system of educst:on
adopted in Maynooth. It was natural to suppose thct
when young men entered the college at a time of lif:.
when they were most susceptible of impressions, and alien
they witnessed nothing but the most barbarous and ex-
ploded tyranny, and doctrines the most obnoxious to the
rights of the subject and the allegiance due to the Crown;
it was natural to suppose that they should themselves be-
come intolerant. But he said that was a system which
Palitament ought to interfsre with, and which should
not receive the yearly sanction of the Lord Lieute
cant and of the Judges. It must, however, be
sanctioned sir long as the present Act of Parliament re-
mained in f ece. It roiBlit not be in their poeer to pre-
vent such duct roes being taught, but it would be in their
power to withdraw from them the continuance of a Lrgi
Ist ye sanction. Whether it would afterwards be tueir
duty to grant any money to a college which would teach
such doctrines was a question for separate corkideration,
and one which he did not thee shah to deal with. He
wished boa ever to put an end to that system of visitation,
wlicb was attended with no effect, but which misled the
public out of doors, from a suppo ilion that something was
done. It would afterwards, lie should repeLt, he the duty
of the House to say whether they would continue the grant
which was now made to the College of Maynooth.
Colonel BRUCE seconded the motion.

Lord M 0 RPETH said, that if the question before the
licuse had been, whether leave should be given to bring
in the B 11 of the Hon. Member who had just sat down,
he, for one, considering how much tht.t speech abounded
in matter highly criminatory and aituperatiye against the
priesthood, and the religious tenets :of a large majority of the
third part of the empire—he for one would have no scruple
in ca'.ing on the House not to receive any such statements
or allegaaions.—( Hear, Lae) The Hon. Member can-
clidly declared the intention with which be had made his
motion. He intended to open a new &id, and lea..e it
free for those who had hitherto felt themselves somewhat
shackled in giving th it votes against the annual grant to
the College of Maynooth. He had said that he had felt
precluded from giving his vote against the grant, in con-
sequence of etialing statute:. By that means it appeared
to him (Lord Morpeth) that the Hon. Member had cast
sonic reproaclr on those cf senii'ive and tender consciences
who had opposed the grant. He ail not see what
tiection the Hon. Member could draw between the Act
of 1800 and the Ac-. of 1795. Mr. Pitt had, no doubt,
been a party to the introduction of the Act of 1795, but
he (Lord Nlorpetti) hal yet to lean to learn that Mr.
Pitt was not in olfi:.e in 1800, and that he had n-.t accepted
the Act introduced by the Irish Parrsonent on the
subject cf Nlaenootin It hid been adopted, together
with the L-g sla e statutes then existing in Ireland, as
part of the union, and from that time the ante had
annually aced by tire Imperial Parliament. He (Id not
pr pose to follow ta:, lion. Gentleman in his dissertatbris
with respect to the d'sparity between the ul.ra-nantanists
and th- Cis-Alpiae pAr:y and the various cal:taterteities
and etiaties, vsitti ti.e enum,7ration of which the llon.
Mot. b r amused the leisure of the House. It had beeu
one of 'b 1,--n•6 aof the Ernaaciration Act ; but there
wee many Ho M 'mbers of the House more competent
to e t r such r'i caaeions than he could pretend to be,
or than he apprele n led the Hon. Member hirreelf could
be. He was hapi yto find that there were members of
:he Roman Catliche conmur.ity ia the House who would
be able, when they heard any statements derogatory to
r religion, to contradict it. The Han. Member had
st t-d that in R min Cedrolic countries on the Contineet
el Europe—in Fra ce and in. Austria—everything relating
tc religio t fe.l . nd r the cognizance of a secretary of state.
But bow did the Honourable Gentleman propose
to deal with the ger a !on in this country ? Was not the
Hon. Gentlemen aware that the Secretary of Sate who
rrespcn 1. d with t-e See of Rome upon the subject
vould incur the penalty of premunire? Tl.e Hon. Gen-
tleman ought, thereFere, while he proposed the introduc-
tion of such a system, to have first called on them to rcpe 1
the Act which imposed that penalty. The Hon. Member
had sae', that in ether countries the Sate imposed condi-
tion; on the Catholic clergy, to renounce certain doe-
trines, and refrain from cer ain pract.cee. The Hon.
Gentleman should, howeven have remembered that in
t.iose countries net only did the State centrel the con-
duct of the clergy, but it also paid them; it vnaintairm
arid eneavage 1 them. If the Hon. Gen•leiral thought
t :ey should interfere with the conduct of the Roman
Catholic c ergy iu Ireland, he should hove asked the House
to provide son.e more adequate means for keeping that
clergy in a state of greater respectability and comfort.
The II ;n. Member had quoted extracts from several
books, which he stated to be used in the libraries and lec-
ture-rooms of Maynooth ; he had mentioned Bailey, An-
toine, and Thomas Aquinas, among the number, but ha
must have known that those books v.e,e probably in use in
the time of Mr. Pit., and they were certainly in u e when
Mr. Percival and Lord Castlereagh auppurted the annual
r rant for the 'institution. But even it the !lon. Member
had shown that there were many doctrines incialcat
and many books read is Maynooth which did not meet e h
his approbation, he would still have proved nothing in the
case. What was that for which the College of Maynooth
had been instituted? The Hon. Member opposite had
said that it was intended that a portion of the laity should
be educated there, as well as clergymen ; but it was the ob-
ject of Mr. Pitt, in founding the College, to withdraw those
who were to form the future body of tie I. isle priesthood
from the influence of the principles end education of
France. It was intended that those who were to form
the mieiaters of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland
should be educated in this country. That being the ob-
ject of the institution, unless the Hurt. Member could show
that the doctrines inculcated there wee in cont-adiction
with the known principles of the Roman Catholic Church,
he has' made out no case for the interfe,ence of Paniement.
If he could show that the doctrines taught there s e.e con-
trary to the known rite; and ordinances and inst tutions of
the Roman Catholic Caurch, he would then admit that the
Hon. Member had proved his CIEC —( Hear, hear.) He
eoeld give an illustration of lis averring. Suppose that
Maynooth, instead of being instituted fur the purposes of
teaching the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church had
been instituted for the purposes of educating clergymen in
the faith of the Protestant Establisher-telt • suppose that its
mofazinnogbilenedt,haasdatettr,igt‘lie.uceiluGeseatinionitoof Protestant9li Church
profesanrausaannd at oac c ergy-
obuet
foundi avoc
upte.btdi lecturersnua.ii
y declaring
e colfa
rt
innagt
mc eo nl
theyl
were
eae
edi
nisntsttaitduot supposeef
instituted,
shouldrart
ytihueg
a4o,lbjee,,,sent fur
ew
ph
ri
ch
strong
that there was no very great di; inctione
testant Church of England and the
Church—
(Hear, hear, hear)—denouncing in
they were pleased to call the terrors of a terms what
and inculcated on their pupile that there
'
essential difference between the doctrines co; thes no
very
thesetwo
churches—( Loud cheers)—under such circumstances,
they would not be surprised to find that many t .
pupils were deserting the Established Church, and n..
term," into the Catholic Church.—(Loud cheers.) If
the flee. Gentleman had brought forward such a case as
that, he would then admit that the Institution had not
answered the purpose of its establishment, and that he had
made out a case callieg for the interference of Parlia.
'Bent. Honourable Gentlemen opposite seemed to think
that he was not borne out in the allusions which he
for their information, he would quote
Log_
land moad e ;
work
of authority, The Chuich of En
land Quarterly Review, a passage from their critique ong"
the OxferTracta.—Jhe Nyhle
Lord here quoted a
passage from the work alluded to, denouncing the Oxford
Tracts as a direct approach to r
dfarotemd
to sap the foundation f the Church Papacy,
of
dEanspvicuatil(ci
within, while lefidels
without.] Tnese accusations were brought oi wd
oar
and Pepiats were attacking it from
notforward
against the professors of the Roman Catholic religion,but
eg inst the professors of the Protestant religion in a Prc-
teitans University.—(Loud cheers.) No suds accu-
sation had been brought against the Prof.ssors of
Maynootb. And, whatever they might have been charged
with, they had never been charged with any laxity is up-
holding the doctrines and discipline of the Catholic Church.
—(Cheers.) The Hon. Gentleman had touched upon the
conduct of the priesthood with regsrd to their conduct as
rela'ed tie the common re'a'ions of life in Ireland. When
speaking of a body so numerous as the Roman Catholic
priesthood of Ireland, he would not attempt either to deny
or defend every action of every member of that body.
More particularly did he join with the Hen. Gentleman in
repudiating those denunciations from the altar, to which he
bad alluded. Such u
topics of pot*l • 1 excitement, when
urge I from such a plac°e, musmust be concsaidered as a deseera-
ton of the Most High....(Loud cheers.) It was taking