The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-17 00:00:00

celibacy. He wished also to deny that it was the precursor to
an endowment. He did no', however, believe that the ano-
maly of a State Church for the tenth-part of the people of
Ireland could be long endured. It should be put an end to by
the Government in some way; and, whether it was by the
voluntary system, or by reconciling the people of Ireland to the
continued existence of it by endowing that which should be
called the national Church, he did not see how that endowment
was hastened by this grant. It. would be worth while to analyse
the grounds on which the opposition rested, the elements of
which would be found not only to be heterogeneous,
but absolutely conflicting with one another. The
Nun-conformist petitioners concur in the opposition
to the grant. beeheise they thought it was infringing the rights
of conscience to grant any sum of money to another Church,
the tenets of which they did not believe, and because it would
inflict a greater wrong on them than any other class of Pro-
testants. But what did the Protestants say ? That it would
be endangering the establishment. One party opposed because
it would uphold the Irish Church, and the others because it
would tend to subvert the Irish Church. It could not be true
that the same measure would have opposite effects at the same
time. He did not believe that it would tend to subvert the
Church of Ireland, nor did lie think that that was its intention,
and he, as a Protestant himself, would say that opposition from
that quarter was unbecoming and ungenerous. The non-
conformists, if they believed that this may lead to an en •
dowment of the Roman Catholic Church. were consistent,
but he should like to know upon what tenable ground of prin-
ciple or justice the members of the Established Church of
Ireland could object. It could not be because it was an en-
dowment. Could they object upon the ground that the
Church of Rome entertains and disseminates erroneous doc-
trines? No ; the Protestant Church could not take up that
ground. No Church that was built absolutely upon the right
of private judgment can set up such a claim, becau.e the very
admission of the right of private judgment implied that the
very Church that asserts such a claim admits, in allowing the
right of private judgment, that it may be wrong, and that its
opponents may be right. As a member of that Church, he
would aver that it must be conceded that the Protestant Church
Establishment was anomalous, in so much as it was not to be
defended by ecclesiastical reasons, but by abstract princi-
ples, and merely upon the ground of expediency. Upon
these grounds he would ask, was it becoming in the
members of the Church of England to come forward to oppose
any provision for the religious instruction of their Roman
Catholic fellow-countrymen? The great balk of the Irish
people were not to be looked upon as Dissenters. Ireland was
not a case where the people had seceded from the Church. but
where, by brute force, the Church had been thrust upon the
people. Endowment was not the question before them, it was
a grant for educational purposes, and upon that ground he
would support the measure ; and he implored the people of
England, upon every ground of justice, generosity, and pru-
dence, so to eertsi:ler the rent ter before them. He did not agree
with the Right lion. Baronet as to the sources from whence
the money was to come ; he would support the motion of his
Hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, that it should be paid
by Ireland. And he felt that, even if his Honourable Friend
failed in his motion, he would, nevertheless, support the
grant. This was the only measure which could gain
for them the affections of the Irish people, and he would not
take upon himself the responsibility of opposing it. He would
ask those who opposed the measure, were they prepared to leave
Ireland in its present state—a state in which they retained one
portion of their empire as if it were an enemy's country, by
artillery and the bayonet.—( Hear, hear.) And if they were
not prepared to leave her as she was, what measures
were they competent to pass, by which they meant to attach
to this country the affections of the people of Ireland; and it
was essential that they should be attached to this country.
With that country hostile, England would not be safe for a day,
and they would lose that opinion of their strength in other
countries which would be the best substitute for its existence.
He did not think that it was too much to say that ev •ry petition
epposed to that grant which was laid on that table would have
the effect of materially retarding those who were negotiating
even on the very shores of the Pacific. He could not, of
course, approve of the whole policy of the Right Hon. Barone'
who proposed the measure, and of course he regretted the per-
versity of fortune that compelled him and others under the
guidance of one who appeared to concede to fear that which he
refused to justice. If the Hon. Baronet had net acted under
motives of a higher nature which he attributed to him, if he
brought forward this measure merely through necessity, he
(Sir William Clay) was yet of opinion that he acted right,
and that on that occasion he would have his cordial snpport.
He was bound to say that if they who opposed this grant were
prepared to afford a double impulse to the repeal agitation, and
to renewed declamation, rather than give a few paltry thousand
pounds to the education of the Irish priests, then let them
throw out the measure, and touch the Irish on that point in
which they were most sensitive, by telling them that they were
to expect no redress from the British people or from the British
House of Commons.—( Hear, hear.) Let them see the use
already made by Mr. O'Connell of the spirit which had been
manifested in London against this grant. If the Bill were
thrown out he should scarcely know how to blame—enemy as
he was to the repeal cause—a renewed agitation of the repeal ;
he should scarcely know how to hope for the time when a real
union could exist ; and for himself he should almost despair-of
ever seeing the two countries reconciled.

Lord BERNARD said that, representing as he did a large
constituency, and considering the corrupt state of the registries
of Ireland, and recollecting the intimidation that was used and
encouraged by the priests at the last election, he felt he was
not warranted in expressing any other opinions than those he
was about to exhibit on the present occasion. However painful
it might be to himself, he was coming forward to express an
opinion in direct opposition to that Government to which he was,
on other questions, enabled to give his support. He considered
that en this question mere personal feeling should be as dust
in the balance. Before he entered into this question, ha would.
call the attention of the House to one speech which was de-
livered yesterday evening—it was delivered by the Hon. Mem-
ber for Cork, who stated that if Hon. Members knew the
state of education in Ireland, they would have known that one
of the boons which were most zealously sought
for was, that Trinity College should be thrown
open to all classes of her Majesty's subjects.
Now, why did he quote that particular part of the Hon. Mem-
ber's speech ? It was for this reason —because that Hon.
. .

Member might be looked upon as an authority in all matters
relating to the education of Roman Catholics in Ireland ; and
because it would appear by the Hon. Member's speech that the
Roman Catholics of Ireland were ready to abandon not only
the education of the middle cla=ses, but to make the most im-
portant and extraordinary sacrifices rather than yield up their
right to political agitation, or the power of aiming another
blow at the University of Dublin. But now let him ( Lord
Bernard) state why it was that he opposed the present measure
of the Government. It was for this reason amongst others—
that he had always opposed the grant to Maynooth,
and he had yet to learn why he should not do so now. He
would ask, was he hound by any compact, or fettered by any
tie ? He denied that he was ; and he defied any Hon. Mem •
ber in the House to prove the contrary. Let him ask fur-
ther, was he bound to vote fur the grant of a sum of money for
the support of a religion he did not believe to be true, which vote
would, in fact, a.nount to a vote for the suppression of a reli-
gion which he did believe to be true ? Now, let him call to
mind one of the alleged grounds of this compact. He would
undertake to show that it was, in fact, no compact at all; and
in doing so he would not weary the House by referring
to the speeches of Lord-Lieutenants of Ireland in
former days, for this reason—that they did not differ
much from the speeches he had heard delivered in that House.
But let him cad the attention of the House to the fact, that in
the year 1795, this grant to the Roman Catholic College of
Maynooth was made solely for this reason, that the Roman
Catholic priests had, up to that time, been in the habit of re-
ceiving their education in continental countries, where they
imbibed feelings and opinions not consonant with the princi-
ples of English Government and English feeling ; and also be •
cause at about that time Woulfe Tone and others of his party
were about to establish a democratic seminary for the education
of the Roman Catholic priests. There was a pamph-
let published at that time by a member of that party,
which, amongst other statements, contained one to
this effect:—That " it would be much better for the
Government to educate the clergy of the Roman Catholic reli.
gion at home, than to send them abroad; and that, therefore,
it would be expedient to give this grant, and that for the pre-
sent, at least, it would look plausible." But in an-
other part of the same work it was stated that
" it never could have been contemplated to continue
such a sum for the mere purpose of educating the Romish
youth of Ireland, and when such a proposition was proposed
to the Legislature, a considerable number of Members left the
House." This was a statement that was made in the year
1799. Let him now remind the House of statements that had
been made upon this same subject at a later period by Hon.
Members, in what was called the Protestant House of Lords,
and the Protestant House of Commons ; and the votes that
had been given in favour of this grant, which it was well known
had never been intended to continue for a longer period than
twenty years. The Hon. Member for Newark had called the
attention of the House to the speech of Mr. Percival in
confirmation of the grant who, the Hon. Member con-
tended, had spoken in confirmation of the grant
and that it should be maintained ; but the Hon. Member had
forgotten that Mr. Percival had made that speech at a time
when the twenty years had not yet expired ; and, therefore,
that argument could not apply.-4 Hear, hear.) Another
speech had been alluded to as made by an Hon. Member pro •
posing that this grant should be increased to 13,0001. That
was in the year 1817 ; but in the meantime, before that preposi-
tion could be carried out or considered, the Government were
dissolved and a new Government came in; and by that Go-
vernment the grant was again renewed for the usual sum.
But it was not then understood that it was to be compulsive,
for if it were to be looked upon in the light of an unwr►tten
compact, and binding as such, why should it not apply with
equal force to the Charter Schools of Ireland.—( Hear, hear. )

Why, on the other hand, should the Government of the country
take away from the Established Church in Ireland, revenues
to the amount of 75,000/. per annum, by the suppression of
certain bishoprics in that country.—( Hear, hear.) Upon a
late occasion he ( Lord Bernard) presented a petition from
the grand jury of the county of Cork—one of the most im-
portant bodies in Ireland—praying that the Legislature might
extend the mine protection to Catholics as to Protestants in
regard to education, and that petition was signed by four
Roman Catholic gentlemen. —( Hear, hear.) He could bring
forward many other arguments, to show how dangerous it
would be to carry out the establishment of this principle ; but
he would content himself with those he had already given,
and apply himself to another branch of the subject. Now let
him ask, were there no reasons stated before the House, why
this grant should not be withdrawn? Was it not
notorious that the doctrines taught in the College of Maynooth
were such as weae not those that should be encouraged by the
British Government? Was it not well known that the Ro-
man Catholic priests were the leaders of the agitation that had
spread all over Ireland about two years ago? The great public
meetings that then took place were led on by the Roman
Catholic priests; and, therefore, those clergymen must either
have approved of these meetings being held, or they had not the
power to restrain the people from attending them. And if, on
the one hand , the Roman Catholic priests were the leaders of
those meetings, then would the House be holding out a bonus
for the promotion of that agita•ion ; or, on the other, the Go-
vernment should not assist in aiding the promotion of a reli-
gious persuasion in Ireland that led to such results. —( Hear,
hear. ) He would say, also, that he woutd oppose this motion
on religious grounds, though he was aware of the difficulty and
danger of introducing such a topic in that assembly. Yet let
him remind the House that they had been told that
if this measure should not pass it would have
the effect of increasing the repeal agitation. He
denied that such would he the effect ; on the contrary, his
opinion was that if this grant were agreed to they would have
concession after concession demanded and proposed. The grant
would, undoubtedly, have the effect of endangering the Estab-
lished Church in Ireland; and if so, let him ask how long
would it be before it would have the same effect in this country?
—( Hear, hear.) Let the House observe how dangerous it was
to spend the public money in support of the Catholic religion
in Ireland at this moment, wilen it was a well-known fact that
large bodies of those who professed that religion doubled the
truth of it, and were about to abandon it ; and, therefore, let
him ask, was this II ,use to come forward, and, under those eir•
cumstanses, stop the progress of such a reformation in that
country? As to the motion of the Hon. Member for Sheffield,
he ( Lord Bernard) would not anticipate the result upon the dis-
cussion of it, but he would make a remark or two on the speech
delivered by the Honourable Member for Montrose, last
night. That Honourable Member stated that a large sum
had been placed at the disposal of the Ecclesiastical Com-
missioners for the purposes of the Protestant Church in Ireland ;
but he (Lord Bernard) begged to say that nothing could be
more totally unfounded. The fact was so much the contrary,
that the Protettant Church in Ireland at that moment was very