The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-19 00:00:00

appointment of some of those Commissioners_we proposed
that three of tho e should be prelates of the Roman Catholic I
Church—they felt it their duty to accept the appointment, and
they acted from public and most tlisinti rested motives. 1 hey
believed that you were honest in your intentions in doing an
act of justice in a kind manner; and I trust that the result ef
that Act was to break up that, in some degree, formidable
combination of the laity, clergy, and physical strength which
then existed. These prelates had great difficulty to encounter
in undertaking to co-operate with us in the execution of that
measure. There was a formidable agitation directed against
them, but confiding in the purity of their motives, and be-
lieving in the honourable intentions of the Government,
they resisted the force of that agitation, and we had the satis-
faction of seeing the prelates of the Established Church and
the prelates of the Roman Catholic religion acting in friendly
concert for the promotion of a common object. Let me say,
that that was no small object to obtain. By the execution of '
the first Act—that Act which received almost the unanimous
approbation of this H tt e, and there was no violation of public
principle—no sacrifice of the interests of that Protestant re-
lieion to which I trust I firmly adhere, and the doctrines of
which I hold in as high estimation as any of my Hon. Friends
around me. But the result of the measure of justice
offered in the spirit of kindness was that which
I have described. It was an encouragement to proceed in the
same spirit. Ido not say it was an encouragement to make any
concession inconsistent with religious principles and constitu-
tional p-inciples; and I say no more than that it was a marked
encouragement to proceed in the course of conciliation and
justice. We had then to consider what eourse we should take
with respect to Maynooth. It was forced upon us. Neither
we, nor you, can escape the consideration. What will you do
with the College of Maynooth? You supported it for fifty
years. 111 y Honourable Friend (Sir Robert H. Inglis) to
prove the great difficulty of argument, makes the avowal that
he is prepared to withdraw thegrant. Sir, I am not. —( Cheers. )
When opposed to her Majesty's Government, 1 came down here
expressly to support them in the maintenance of that grant. I
do not really believe that there can be ten men in this House
who, after having voted for the endowment Act of last year—
having acted in cordial concert with the Roman Catholic Pre •
fates who constituted the Commission ;for the execu-
tion of that Act—l do not believe there are ten men who
think it would be possible for U 3 to come down this year, and
state that we have conscientious scruples to prevent our conti-
nuing the grant to the C ;liege of Maynooth. What would be
the feeling of the whole Roman Catholic community on such
an avowal? We contend it is not merely a vote. You passed
three Acts of Parliament for cementing the connexion with that
institution. You appointed a visitor, and you appointed trustees,
and you subject their bye-laws to the revision of the Lord-Lieu-
tenant ; and the nomination of the President depends upon
his approbation. The relations in which you stand to May-
nooth have existed for 51 years, and can any one conceive it
possible that I, for instance, who in 1840 thought it impossible
to withhold the grant to that institution, should advise the
House of Commons to separate itself from all connexion with
it ? Surely there can be few who think that course desirable.
Shall we continue the grant? Sir, I say that is a
course worse even than the discontinuance of the vote.
Some Honourable Gentlemen have doubted the ac-
curacy of the statement which I made with regard
to Maynooth. The Right Hon. Gentleman read some
account which he had received of the comfortal.le situation
of the students, and appearance of the building. Sir, I
believe that I shall be confirmed by those who have been
there in all 1 said—namely, that it is an institution professedly
supported by the Government and Parliament, and is in a 1
condition utterly unworthy of the patronage of this House.
I find what I believe to be a much more correct account than
that to which the Right Hon. Gentleman has referred. It
was quoted by a Noble Lord, who is be:ter acquainted with
the state of Ireland than almost any other Peer in the House
of Lords—l mean Lord Monteagle—who quoted from a book
which was written in the year 1834. It contained an accu-
rate description of the disagreeable necessities to which the
students in Maynooth were exposed. This writer said that
no Englishman could conceive who did not witness the state of
things which prevailed at Maynooth. ( Hear, hear.)
The dining-room, the kitchen, and students'-room,
were all the same, and the same writer asked why
should the condition of the place be so shamefully re-
duced ? And yet (said the Right Hon. Baronet), this is the
place in which those Roman Catholic students are to be edu-
cated, and to whom you assign some 9,0001. a year? Some of
the objections which have been urged against Maynooth only
confirm my opinion of the policy of altering thissystem. My
Hon. Friend the Member for Dublin said that the Maynooth
priests took a part in the late agitation. Can you be sur-
prised at it ? The manner in which the grant was given—
the amount of that grant—so far from affording the
means of a liberal and enlightened education, compelled
them to make their education exclusively theologian,
and compelled them to make that theology exclusively
polemical. What has been the consequence of the vote that
you gave to Maynooth ? Three professors of theology had been
appointed—three professors living on some 100/.lor 120/. a year,
endowed by you for teaching the doctrines of the Roman
Catholic faith. Is it, I ask, any practical compensation to
them ; or i 3 it from dread of a violation of principle to you, in
that niggardly and parsimonious way. I read an account in
the evidence given in 1826, of the condition of the Professors
of Greek and Latin at Alaynooth. A gentleman, highly dis-
tinguished for his acquirements, and who had gained every
prize, was asked what ho was, before this Commission. lie re-
plied, "the professor of Greek and Latin." He was then asked
if he received anything from the annual vote. He said that he
received 801. a year Irish, thirty guineas of which were de-
ducted on account of groceries and other necessaries. Can we
continue that state of things ? Do we violate any principle by
improving it?—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") If so, Sir, I
cannot be any party to the continuance of snch a state of
things. They could not send out theologists to be parish
priests of Ireland, clergymen capable of instructing their
flacks. who had received an education of this sort. We pro-
pose to increase the comforts of life, and better the condition
of the professors. We propose to hold out to them induce-
ments, in order that they may remain longer there. We wish
to have men of high acquirements and good character. At
present they devote themselves to this toil, at this
miserable salary, for the pure aerl which they
feel for the interests of religion, and for the cause
of education. But do you act inconsistently with the prin-
ciples of the Christian religion if you raise their character, at
least their position, and give them the means of supporting
their religion with decency ? Now, mark what results from this
principle and endowment Act. You have given permission to
landed proprietors to make voluntary endowments. Sir, Ido
hope that the landed proprietors will avail themselves of the
facilities which are legitimately afforded them under the Act;
we cannot conceive any mode of endowment pregnant with
more advantages to the public interest, and tending more to
assuage the bitterness to which religious differences give rise
than in such a cennexion.lf you will make the Roman Catho-
lic priests net merely skilful polemics, but useful in every
respect, give them the means of acquiring scientific acquire-
ments, of making them good chemists, good proficients in
modern science, then probably the landed proprietors will feel
an inducement to avail themselves of this
_power, and by
voluntary contributions make endowments. The increase of
this vote has a material influence upon the Charitable Bequests
Act, and will greatly facilitate its execution. We are told
that the establishment is of a monastic and ascetic character.
Whose fault is that? Not the fault of the Roman Catholic
priests. In 1795, at the institution of Maynooth College, Mr.
Grattan presented a petition from the Roman Catholic body,
objecting to that clause in the Act which prevented the educa-
tion of Protestants there, and the trustees of Maynooth Col-
lege established a lay college there, and did not wish that the
institution should be of an exclusive character. We interfered
to prevent this, and Mr. Abbott informed the secretary to
Maynooth College that the British Government would not
allow the lay college to continue, and it was
accordingly suppressed.—( Hear, hear.) Therefore the
Roman Catholic authorities were not responsible for
the peculiar character of the education pursued there.
At the same time my belief is, that any attempt to make, as a
condition of the education given them, that it should be of a
mixed and secular character—any attempt of this sort would
virtually alter the character of liberality, and probably prevent
the acceptance of this grant. Mr. Burke inculcated on the
British Government the policy of giving separate education
to those who were destined to discharge the functions of the
Roman Catholic priesthood. Why, Sir, you determined then
that it was desirable to increase this grant, and you deter-
mined to increase it, and to make the offer in a manner which
should be thoroughly acceptable to the Roman Catholics of
Ireland. We considered well that question. We did not act
precipitately; We asked ourselves the question, shall we,
before proposing this increase, institute an inquiry
into the course of instruction pursued there. We referred to
the inquiry instituted in 1826, and came to the conclusion that
no beneficial result would arise from a Commission of Inquiry.
Was that inquiry conducted in a friendly or a hostile spirit?
We thought that that. would give rise to hostile theological
controversy, because the Commission would contain necessarily
many persons hostile to Maynooth ; and I admit we thought it
better to adopt Maynooth as it was. We determined
to trust for the beneficial effects of our interference
to the liberality and confidence with which we acted.—( Hear.)
Sir, we proposed that the vote should be permanent instead of
annual. We did not think that by making it a permanent in-•
stead of an annual vote we interfered with any existing prin.
ciple ; and we do think that by making it permanent we shall
remove annual controversy and discussion from the House of
Commons—(Cheers)—that we sharoduce peace and relieve
ourselves from painful contention.-(Cheers.) We incorpo-
rated the trust because we thought that actual incorporation was
in conformity with the spirit which the original Act possessed.
You appointed trustees, and you enabled them to purchase land,
but you did not enable them to possess the land so acquired;
you engender great expense upon them— you admitted the
principle that trustees should be appoihted—that they sheuld
have the power of acquiring land, we propose that they should
have the power of holding the necessity of constant supervision.
That is the nature of the grant we propose—l say that in mak-
ing this grant, though we incorporate the trustees—though the
vote is permanent— I say that in this there is no
violation of principle, which does not apply to the
continuation of the vote for another fifty years,
that vote being applied distinctly under the authority of Par-
liament to the inculcation of the tenets of the Roman Ca.
tholic religion.—( Hear, hear.) It is said that the Roman
Catholic people of Ireland are indifferent to this—that this
grant will be without any effect on the people of Ireland—
that they will reject it as an unnecessary boon, and will not
be thankful for it. I think you do injustice to their feel-
ings.--(Loud cries of "Hear, hear.") I believe the gene-
rosity with which you shall have acted, will
produce gratitude in them.—( Hear, hear.) When
they heard of the proposition, they wrote immediately a letter
of which this is a part. I think there are 17 professors at
Maynooth; and this letter, addressed to me, is signed by 16 out
of 17, the other being incapacitated from signing it by illness;
and they thus expressed themselves:—" Sir, The undersigned
beg leave respectfully to :express their deep sense of gratitude
for the very liberal provision which you, as the head of the
Government, have proposed for the education of the Roman
Catholic clergy, and still more for the kind and gracious
manner in which you have recommended the mea-
sure to the favourable consideration of Parliament."
Now if you ask me whether I believe it more for the interest
of this country that the educators of youth should be influenced
by the grateful feeling here expressed, rather than that they
should be men whom you have starved on the pittance you
have hitherto given them—( Loud cheers)—l do not hesitate
to say that I believe it to be for the interests of peace and good
order—( Hear, hear)—nay, that I believe it rather for the
interests of the Protestant religion that I should commit the
instruction of young men who are to be the spiritual
guardians of the people of another faith, to in-
structors who will be grateful for liberality rather
than to men who view with discontent and and gnetion
the paltry pittance which you assign to them, under the
pretence of supporting them —( Loud cheers.) I do not
carry this too far—l do not mean to say that they are satisfied i
ito draw,
the law, or that the institution will be perfectly satis-
factory. Ido not mean to say that they have made any com-
promise or sacrifice of principle—l cannot guarantee to you
mthat they will receive any vote for Maynoath, as, in their
opinion, a complete and final measure.—( Hear, hear, from the
ntilie of
,
Ministerial benches.) No, I cannot say that; but they are not
a generous feeling they say this is an honourable and liberal
pinrdoivffiseiroenn tfotronsy.ourThliabteraislittyti,e andon in
only
inference the
wish
and that is the motive upon which we act • •in making thit
grant. My Hon. Friend (Sir R. Inglis) has put two goes_
tions to me. He has said, " I call on you to state whether
not this is part for a preconcerted system,h or
the whole of h
we have not developed, and whether this wic
ference to 11laynooth, is brought forward preposition, in re-
signedly for the
purpose, and for a further endowment of th
clergy. I will answer hi e Roman Catholic
m that this measure is