The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-01 00:00:00

TAR STN, LONDON, TIT

not the Roman Catholic merchants in Dublin have an
opportunity of having their sons educated at Trinity
College, Dublin. The Roman Catholics were quite con-
tented that so much should be reserved for the Protestant
Clergy as was necessary ? Why not open twenty sche-
larships to the Roman Catholics in Trinity College, and
provide endowments which should be also open to them ?
He had taken this opportunity of offering a few sugges-
tions to the Government, because he was really anxious
that the Bill should succeed. His present impression
was, that if this Bill was enacted in its present form it
would prove a nullity. They must remember that the
Bishops of Ireland were chosen by the people, and en-
joyed perfect confidence, and whatever they recommended
was to be considered as an exposition of the opinions of
the Catholics of Ireland. He should have thought that they
had had sufficient experience in the Charter school, not
to mention other analogous cases, of attempting to govern
schools independent of that opinion. If they proceeded
on their present principle, they might as well withdraw
the Bill altogether. Lord Stanley had given them a
system of poor-law, which was carried against the
wishes of the Irish Members, and it ultimately proved a
failure. He should like to see the Government doing
justice to Ireland by consulting the opinions and the
feelings of her people.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said he had hoped the Bill
would have been allowed to go into Committee without
any more discussion on its general principles. The
Hon. Member admitted the necessity for a measure of
this kind, and, therefore, he (Sir James Graham) con-
sidered the best course would have been for him to
allow the Bill to go into Committee, and when
there to consider what amendments were necessary
for the efficiency of the Bill. He was not prepared to
say that he was opposed to all the amendments pro-
posed by the Hon. Member, though he would beg tao ob-
serve that the principles involved in them had been fully
discussed both by the Noble Lord the Member for Lon-
don, another Noble Lord (Lord Mahon), and other
Members who had suggested alterations and amend-
ments. The Hon. Gentleman pecused the Government
of corrupting the minds of the people of Ireland. But
he had such an opinion of the importance of diffusing
general intelligence that he believed there could be no
greater means of preventing their corruption. The reli-
gious education of the students was not neglected. It
was provided for, firsts under the care of the parents
themselves ; secondly, under the care of the persons
selected by the parents or guardians ; and, thirdly,
by the heads of the Halls, who would be chosen by
the professors, subject to the approbation of the Crown.
With respect to the representation of the Right Rev.
Prelates, since that was made several amendments had
been made in the Bill. The colleges were intended for
secular education, and that only. Religious instruction
was not to be given there.
Mr. O'CONNELL said he would not retard the House
by expressing his sentiments, and thought it would be
useless to do so after the declaration of the Right Hon.
Baronet. He agreed with the Right Hon. Baronet in
thinking the House ought not to submit to the dictation
of any body of persons, however respectable, and how-
ever honourable. "What signified the expenditure of
money,and the appointment of professors, if they did not
attend to the advice of the Right Rev. Prelates, the Bill
would not succeed. The Right Hon. Baronet said the
Bill had been much altered. He was in possession of
the opinion of those prelates, which showed that the
alterations made had created no change in their minds.
The lion. and Learned Gentleman then read a letter
dated Maynooth College, June 26, from Archbishop
M'Hale, which set forth the unanimous opinion of the
Prelates as to the immoral and irreligious tendenc,y of
the Bill remaining unaltered. Some of the prelates
were of opinion that they should petition Par-
liament, taking the memorial already published
as a model for such petition, but subse-
quently agreed not to do so, in consequence of
the disrepect with which the opinions of the Prelates
had been already treated in Parliament.—(Hear, hear.)
The Right Rev. Prelate further described the Bill as a
heinous and revolting act, and again mentioned that the
opinion of the Prelates expressed in the memorial re-
mained unaltered. The Bill (continued the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman) was justly considered as a tempta-
tion to youth to neglect their duty, which they owed to
the first principles of religion. Some words in the
letter might be too strong, but it was, at all events,
characteristic of the strong feeling which the Bill had
created in Ireland. The object of its promoters was of
course success, and how could they expect success when
the opinions of two- thirds of the people of Ireland were
in strong opposition to it. His object was to obtain re-
ligious as well as secular instruction for the people.
This the Bill had not done, and therefore he objected to
it. They had positively done nothing by these alterations.
They had to be sure, given permission to enact a Bill for
religious purposes, but this provision was only
negative, for, according to the decision of Lord Chan-
cellor Sugden, that power existed already. The law
was quite settled on that point. There was no
longer any doubt but Catholics might endow schools and
convents, as the Right Hon. Baronet had said. This
measure propagated darkness; common charity would
be promoted best by giving each sect instruction in their
own religion ; let them give one hall for theology to the
Roman Catholic, another to the Protestant, and another
to the Presbyterian, but as now arranged they left all in
original darkness, and defeated their own intentions.
The Protestants comprised the wealthiest in Ireland,
and the present measure virtually allowed wealth to
triumph over religious poverty by leaving endowment
to voluntary bounty. He should take one division on
an early clause, not from any hope of success, but be-
cause he felt that he should have dune his duty to his
conscience and his country. He pretested against the
measure, because he regarded it as totally irreligious,
and giving a one-handed permission to darkness and
irreligion.
Lord J. RUSSELL considered the observations of
the Learned Member for the county of Cork of the
greatest importance, accompanied as they were by the
opinions of the R ,man Catholic prelates. He could not
go the length of designating the measure a penal enact-
ment, but thought seine weight should be attached to
the observation of it being dangerous to faith and
morals, and certainly if posed in opposition to the wish
of the hierarchy of Ireland, it would not at least be
useful. He should not oppose its going into Cones
mittee ; in that stage it might possibly be amended, but
if it came out of Committee with the stigma unremoved,
he thought the Bill ouelit not to be sent over to Ireland.
One other provision he considered very objectionable—he
meant that of the appointment of professors ; but as
amendments on that subject would be subsequently pro-
posed, he should reserve any further remarks till
,that
period.
The House then went into Committee on the Bill.

On the first clause being read, proposing that 100,0001.
be appropriated for the erection of three colleges, appor-
tioned in sums of 33,3331. 6s. Bd. respectively,
Lord J. RUSSELL rose to move an amendment. He
moved that in line 17 of the clause, the words be inserted
" including the building of the halls hereinafter men-
tioned," and that they leave out the words " not exceed-
ing 33,3331. 6s. Bd. for each such college."
Sir J. GRAHAM opposed the amendment as decidedly
at variance with the principle of the Bill. It would be
introducing the principle of religious education as a part
of the scheme if they allowed this provision to be intro-
duced into the Bill. He therefore decidedly objected to
what the Noble Lord propose‘l. He considered that the
100,000/. would be little enough for the other purposes
f-if the Bill, without applying any of it as the Noble Lord
desired. If it was the opinion of the House a discretionary
power might be invested in the trustees, but the amend-
ment was at variance with the principle of the Bill.
Mr. 4VYSE said that he differed from the Right Hon.
Baronet as to the principle of the Bill. There was no
necessity for considering the halls and the colleges as
bound on the same principle, for they were indeed
essentially different. If it was objected that no grant
could bo made for religious instruction in the halls, yet
that objection was overruled in the colleges. If the
governing body of the colleges were not worthy of the
confidence of the Catholic community, then indeed
the objection might be made, but if it were, though he
should object to the supremacy of one governing body
over the proceedings of another as being incompatible
with that supremacy which ought to be held in each,
yet, under the circumstances, he did not see that the
auendment was opposed to the principle of the Bill, and
iMas entitled to his support.
Mr. Sergeant MURPHY thought that any aid con-
tributed out of the public purse would be contingent on
any contributions of the nighbourhood.
Sir R. PEEL said that the Government had made a
much more liberal provision, for they had proposed that
100,000/. should be appropriated to the erection of colleges,
halls, and other edifices, but without the appropriation
of any portion for the residorces of the professors. Yet
they would not refuse any aid for the secular instruction
of the youth sent to these colleges, and it would be un-
reasonable to refuse the same aid for the religious
instruction of the pupils. They were ready to receive
these contributions for the endowment of these halls,
and they were quite ready to allow the use of the pulpits in
those halls to the clergy of the Catholic body.—( Hear,
hear.) The object was not to conciliate the Catholic
body, but to adjust the respective claims of the several
parties. Was it not then reasonable to say the Roman
Catholics, the Presbyterians, and the Independents
should provide for their own religious instruction? They
were willing to provide for the best secular instruction
i
of those bodies, and he thought that t wouldbe unreason-
able to provide for the religious instruction of theßoman
Catholic pupils, and he thought, therefore, that any ad-
judication of money out of the public purse would be
contrary to the principle of the Bill.
Mr. VERNON SMITH—The object of this amend-
ment was not to test the validity of the grant, but to
elicit the feelings of the people. He contended. that it
was a bad principle to leave the moral supervision to
voluntary contributions. He quite agreed with his lion.
Friend (Lord J. Russell) that the professional system
was quite unfitted for Ireland. Now, what had the Hon.
Gentleman told them the other night, why, that these
colleges were intended for the benefit of the middle
classes. The studies for active life of that class began at
17 or 18 years of age, and at that time it was in which
religious instruction was most especially needed, and yet
the Right Hon. Baronet proposed to leave this religious
instruction to the voluntary feelings of the people. He
thought the effect of such arrangement was not likely
to prove very satisfactory, His Noble Friend wished to
establish with more certainty those halls which seemed
likely to provide for the education of the Roman Catholic
pupils.
Mr. SHAW said that this question of the halls na-
turally led to the endowment of the Roman Catholic
Church in general, and as he knew that if they endowedone professor they must endow others, this proposition
was clearly in opposition to the Bill. He thought,
therefore, that the Noble Lord ought to be able to ex-
plain the grounds on which he thought this endowment
should be made.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that, as was shown by
the observations of the Hon. Member for Waterford, it
was the proposal of the Government not to give re-
ligious education, but only a secularkdacation for the
people of Ireland, Now, as the clan 11"17 stood, i 6 W$

clearly contrary to the principle of the Bill. The Ro-
man Catholic hierarchy had required that the students
should attend Divine worship on Sundays. Now,
with regard to the question as to whether there
should be any religious instruction, he had no
objection to the instruction of the Roman Catholic
pupils by Roman Catholic priests. Certainly it
was not wise to leave the pupils without any
religious instruction. He had not sufficient acquaintance
with the constitution of Trinity College, but he did not
think that there should be any doubt as to what was to be
the system pursued in it. Either they must open Trinity
College, Dublin, to Roman Catholics as well as to Pro-
testants or they must altogether close it, and although
he thought this college should be opened, yet it cer-
tainly was not wise to interfere with its present govern-
ment. Yet, notwithstanding his objection to this, he
thought that there should not be one sort of education
for the Protestants and another, which though inferior,
was good enough for Roman Catholics. On this ground,
therefore, he thought that it would be advisable to make
this provision for the religious education of the Catholics.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that much had been said of
opening Trinity College to all sects without distinction,
but with certain minor restrictions Catholics were
equally eligible with Protestants to be received into that
University. The Noble Lord had argued as if it were
a necessary part of the economy of the
intended Government colleges that students should re-
side in them. But this residence was not compulsory,
but voluntary, and in contemplating such, they were
actuated by several motives ; one to have the students
under the supervision of their superiors, and another
to simplify the arrangements for educational and
domestic purposes. The Noble Lord's argument, he re-
peated, would have been unanswerable if the attendance
of students at these halls were compulsory ; but as that
a.tendance was voluntary, his amendments were alto-
gether unnecessary.
Mr. C. BULLER said that every alteration made in
the Bill had deteriorated it, because it interfered with
its original principle. He was ready to accept this Bill
as it stood, on the assurance of Government that
a university system would be ultimately adopted
for the college one now contemplated, because
the real essence of a university education consisted
in the power to give degrees, which would
be found exceedingly useful afterwards to scientific men;
and they could not expect, unless they gave this advan-
tage, that these colleges would be crowded with students.
The Roman Catholics of Ireland had a right to an equally
good education with that given in Trinity College,
Dublin, and this plan would give them that. He had
no desire to depreciate the advantages of moral and re-
ligious training, bait experience had shown that religion
was not inculcated in their national universities. Why,
when he was himself at Cambridge, it was customary " to
buy off" attendance at chapel, and it was a rule that
gentleman commoners were asked to attend chapel only
on Sundays, while pensioners were required to be there
every day. It was monstrous. It seemed as if the
souls of noblemen and gentlemen commoners did not
require that watchful attention which was expended
upon the lower classes of collegians. He remembered,
also, a man being found reading a novel in chapel. One
would suppose that his superiors would have said, " You
are not in a proper frame of mind to perceive the beau-
I ties of Christianity," and they would have tried by rea-
soning to show him his error. But let the House mark
the difference. That gentleman was, for the remainder
of his terms, obliged to attend chapel morning and even-
ing.—(Laughter.) He regretted any alteration in the
principle of this measure. The system had been found
to work well in Scotland, and none in that House would
undertake to say that the Scotch were a nation of
Atheists. They could not be considered the least reli-
gious portion of thepmpire. There the students were
not obliged to go techapel, or to attend theological lec-
tures ; and he knew, from a friend of his who had
studied in Edinburgh for a year and a half, that a mural
superintendence was exerted far superior to that of Ox-
ford or Cambridge. He was not compelled to attend
chapel, but he was a resident in the house of a clergy-
man, where practical lessons of Christianity were taught
him—(Hear, hear)—and so with the universities of Lom-
bardy. In Padua and Modena, the system was the very
same with that of Edinburgh. He trusted that the Go-
vernment would not introduce religious tuition into their
Bill, because, as surely as they did so, the measure would
be inefficient for Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) This was a
scheme to give classical and scientific education to Ire-
land, let the parents or guardians look that their reli-
gious education be attended to. He would support the
original Bill, and he trusted that the Government would
adhere to it.

Sir R. 11. INGLIS said that he should not then enter
further into the discussion than to make a few observa-
tions on what had fallen from the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman who had just sat down. In answer to his
statement, and the cheers of other lion. Members, he had
no hesitation in stating, that in no class of society had a
greater improvment taken place than in the University
which he had the honour to represent. With respect to
this Bill, his great objection to it was that it excluded reli-
gion altogether, as a matter essentially connected with the
interests of the State, and still more so as connected
with its duties. The provision which the Bill proposed
for securing a proper superintendence of the religious
and moral instruction of the pupils was manifestly inade-
quate •, for it left to the president of each college the un-
controlled power of giving and withdrawinglicences to the
masters of the boarding-houses, and there was no
clause which required the master to see that the stu-
dents did their duty to God, by attending to divine
worship, as well as their duty to man, by obedience to
the laws of the land, and the laws of conventional
morality. lie would not now detain the House by re-
peating the further reasons which he had previously ex-
plained, in former discussions, for supporting the pro-
position of the Noble Lord the Member for London.
Mr. BERNAL said that the reasons alleged by the
Right Hon. Baronet the Member fur Oxford, for sup-
porting the amendment of his Noble Friend the Member
for London, were precisely those which induced him to
oppose the amendments. He warned, and implored the
Government, if they wished the measure to succeed, to
guard against being seduced into making it a religious
Bill, which would excite against it an amount of popular
hostility altogether unprecedented. He contended that
this was not a proper moment for introducing a dis-
cussion as to the principle of the Bill. They were now
considering only the propriety of introducing the
word " halls" after the word " colleges." Having been
himself a student at Cambridge, he was able to say from
his experience that every attempt to enforce theological
study must be a failure ; and in Ireland the attempt
could have no chance whatever of success.
Sir R. PEEL said that even after all that had been
said by his Right Hon. Friend the Member for Oxford,
he remained convinced of the importance of extending to
those classes who had been hitherto excluded from it,
the advantages of an academical education. He could
not at the same time admit, with the lion. Gentleman
opposite, that the discipline at Cambridge was the same
now that it had been thirty years ago. If the parents
and guardians of children did not take care of their reli-
gious instruction any measure in that House would be
completely absurd.
Mr. SHEIL thought that the principle of the Bill was
at stake. The Government thought that if they received
the suggestion of the Noble Lord, they would make a
secession equivalent to the abandonment of the measure.
He did not agree with his Hon. Friend the Member for
Weymouth on this subject. On other matters he would
have difficulty in differing with him. Not only the
Rumen Catholic Bishops were unanimous with respect
to the inoeeration of this Bill, but every Roman Catholic
Member in that House, and every Irish Member at his
side of the House, concurred in his view that this mea-
sure was ineffective—he might almost say fatally so.—
(" No." from Mr. Ross.) He would wish to except the
Hon. Member for Belfast, where the religions education
of the Presbyterians was provided for. And why not
provide for the religious education of the Roman
Catholics of Cork ? The Presbyterian clergy and laity
received instruction in Belfast, both those who were in-
tended and those who were not intended for the Church.
Those who would be Irishmen—with a single exception,
the Member for Belfast--concurred in thinking the Bill
to be defective. His lion. Friend said, beware
of exciting the people of England. He (Mr.
Sheil) would say, beware of governing Ireland in
conformity with the prejudices of the people of Eng-
land.—(Hear, hear.) The prejudices of the people of
England were not to be held out to them, and he thought
that the Minister of England would agree with him on
that subject.—(Cheers and laughter.) They paid the
Roman Catholic clergymen for attending the barracks
and garrisons of Dublin, and also for attending the sol-
diers wives, with the enormous salaries of 601. a year.
The priest at Templemore was paid that for attending
the barracks. He (Mr. Sheil) knew it, because he him-
self had made the suggestion to the Hon. Member for
Coventry, and that sum was now paid. They paid the
Roman Catholic clergy for attending the poorhouses, and
in common conscience what was the reason why they did
not pay Roman Catholic clergymen for attending in
places of secular instruction in which spiritual instruc-
tion was peculiarly required ? He wanted their reason,
and he wanted it specific and plain, and he could not
forbear from making an observation, that they were con-
stantly saying that they were willing to pay
the Roman Catholics, and lie heard constant
insinuations that the settlement of the Roman
Catholic clergy was of paramount importance, and ought
to be undertaken. It happened that in 1825 the Secre-
tary for the Home Department was not a Member of the
House when Lord F. Egerton brought forward his motion,
but he took the opportunity of stating that if he had been
in Parliament be would have voted for it. The Secretary
at War made a speech in favour of it, but they said that
the Roman Catholic clergy would not take the money.
They had paid on other occasions, and exhibited a desire.
to pay then—was that consistent with the present mea-
sure? The Catholic Bishops asked them to appoint the
clergy at the smallest pittances, but the Government
would not appoint them. They said that they feared the
prejudices of the English people; if such was the case,
this would not be a message of peace, but would add to
the long category of prostrations which constituted the
governing policy of this country with respect to Ireland.
Lord BERNARD made a few observations refer-
ring to the period of history when the Church
of Rome became reunited with the Church of
Ireland. He would be ready to admit the want
of education that existed at all periods of time
from that epoch to this moment. He knew the
wants of the poorer classes of the people at
the present day ; but he would contend for it,
that Trinity College was sufficient for all the pur-
poses of giving education to the middle classes, and then
establish societies for the education of the poorer classes,
such as the Dublin Society. He (Lord B.) would
not speak so much at length upon this subject but that
he was intimately acquainted with that part of Ireland
where, he believed, it was intended that one of these
colleges should be established. At a meeting held in
Cork, at which the Hon. Member for Waterford pre-
sided, that lion. Member declared that he was in favour
of a system of education which should be based on
religion, and that religion founded on the Scriptures;
and a gentleman proposed rescslaticna at ttal meeting

to that effect, and if that should be acceded to in this
Bill it should have his most cordial support; and he
hoped her Majesty's Government would agree to the
insertion of a clause having such an object in view.
Before he sat down he would only say one word, and
that was this, let the arguments in favour of this
Bill, as well as those against it, stand or fall by their
own merits. But if the real object of the Government
was to improve the condition of the people of Ireland,
by introducing capital into that country, by which to give
employment to the labouring classes, who were the
great majority of the people of that country that were
really in want.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, before this discussion
should go any further, he thought it right to say a few
words, and then answer the question of the Right Hon.
Gentleman the Member for Dungarvon. He begged to
say he wished to be distinctly understood as declaring
that he never did contemplate this or any other measure
as a panacea for the ills of Ireland.—(Cheers.) Though
he looked upon this measure as one of vast importance
to that country, still it would be far from affording any-
thing like a means for an improved condition of the
physical wants of the labouring classes in that country.
—(Hear, hear.) As to the question of the Right Hon.
Member for Dungarvon, he did think that even in
the Committee it would be well that the House
should adhere to the principle of the Bill ; but at the
same time he should say that the point now under dis-
cussion would form an object for an ulterior amendment.
—(Hear, hear.) With respect to what had been said
about having a department for the qualifications of chap-
lains, he would say that if the State were to adopt the
domestic form of giving religious instruction, they could
not fail to turn their attention to some of the schemes
they had seen so intimately connected with that system.
And this brought him again to the point in reference to
the appointment of chaplains. The Hon. Member had
said, " Let us know the intentions of the Government
on this point ;" and he (Sir J. Graham) thought the
Hon. Member was right in asking this question. If
those chaplains were to be selected in obedience to the
feelings of some persons in tkis country, he did not
think it would be conducive either to the happiness or
peace of the people of Ireland.—(Hear, hear.)
This was his opinion, and this was the opi-
nion he had given expression to when voting
on the Maynooth question on a former occasion,
which, he was sorry to say, was a measure that had run
counter to the opinion of the majority of the people of
this country. He was not in Parliament in the year
1825, and, therefore, was not compromised by any vote
come to by the House then ; but, when he was in Parlia-
ment, his vote on this question did not compromise his
opinions. He did state that, personally, he should have
no scruples on religious grounds in supporting such a
grant, and, therefore, it was quite clear that, on reli-
gious grounds, he was not opposed to the appointment of
those chaplains, and certainly was not swayed in bis
opinions by any servile adulation to the opinions
of the people of England or of Scotland.—
(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") But it had been asked,
why not support now those appointments ? His
answer was that such appointments would, in his
opinion, extinguish every hope of establishing a good
understanding in those institutions ; for if religious
instruction be given in those colleges it should be either
a social or a separate system of instruction. If it were
to be a social system, then that should be done to which
on religious grounds he had an objection, namely, there
should be a sort of distinction of religious opinions
which would tend to introduce a republican system of
religious instruction that would be most objectionable;
therefore, he conceived that the instruction to be given
in the colleges being founded on the plan of that of the
national education would be the best, and religious in-
struction was not included in that system. He did
think it would be of the last importance if the Pro-
testant and Catholic scholars could be instructed in one
institution, with a view to bring about a softening down
of religious antipathies. But if the principle were ad-
mitted in the south of Ireland of giving religious in-
struction, in the colleges, the Roman Catholic students
should have Roman Catholic chaplains, and in common
justice the Protestants students should have the same.
So likewise should the Presbyterians and the Unitarians,
and even the Jews perhaps would require a rabbi and a
synagogue—(Laughter)—and all the other chaplains
would require separate places of worship also. On these
grounds he did think it would be better to avoid any of
the inconveniences which would attend such a state of
things, and which would in his opinion lead to a scene of
chaos worse confounded. He had now stated his ob-
jection to this amendment, and he would conclude by
saying that, if it should be carried, it would be incon-
sistent in principle, fatal in effect, and anything more
injurious than the proposition of the Noble Lord he
could not conceive.

Mr. ROSS regretted being obliged to vote en this oc-
casion in opposition to those with whom he had been in
the habit of concurring ; but he feared the proposition
would be so injurious that he could not concur in it.
Lord CLIVE did not think the amendment of the
Noble Lord the Member for London involved the prin-
ciple of endowing these fabrics. It was merely intended
to provide the buildings and nothing more.
Mr. LEFROY opposed the amendment. He fully
concurred with the Hon. and Learned Member for Lis-
keard, in the view he had taken on this subject.
Mr. BELLEW said that if this measure was fairly
understood, he did not think there would be much op-
position to it.
Mr. ROEBUCK said that one observation of his
Learned Friend the Member for Dungarvon des.rved
more than ordinary notice. It was that Ireland was not
to be gwverned by the prejudices of the people. In that
opinion he fully concurred, good feeling amongst all
should be preserved. The Honourable Member had
asked, why the principle was not applied to the English
colleges? Fie answered, because that was not the best sys-
tem of education, which the circumstances of England
allowed. Could they teach each separate sect, or could
they endow every denomination which existed in this
country ? Such a system would be impolitic and im •
practicable. As to the proposition or the Noble Lord
(Russell) it struck at the very principle of the Bill ; the
lith clause gave the power to private individuals to
erect halls in the college ; but for what purpose could
chairs of theology be adopted in a college founded for
mixed secular education ? Why should not a geological
hall be established, where the author of " The Vestiges
of Creation" could deliver lectures.—(A laugh.) The
Government proposition was simply an application to
public utility of private money, but the amendment
wholly contravened it. He gave his vote for the endow-
ment of Maynooth on very different principles—he gave
it in spite of its religion, not in consequence of it—and
he was in favour of the present measure, because it
acted upon his long-confirmed opinion of the superiority
of independent secular education. The Government, in
bringing it forward, had adopted not an irreligious, but
a wise and a bold course. They had acted in opposition
to the wishes—he must be allowed to say, the unjus-
tifiable prejudices of the country. They had despised
fleeting applause—that applause which might have been
naturally gratifying to them—but under a sense that it
was a duty they owed themseves and their country, they
had chosen a course which not only was creditable, but,
he ventured to predict, would prove beneficial in its
results.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL could not wonder at the support
which the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath (Mr.
Roebuck) gave the clause and the Bill ; he had always
contended for secular education, and as different sects
existed in the country for leaving out religion altogether,
he must say that the Government measure carried
out that principle to its fullest extent, and he was not
surprised to find the Hon. Member delighted with its
provisions.—(Cheers.) But the measure went further,
it went to destroy the endowment of all religion, and
controverted the principle of Government Church Esta-
blishments. Such was the doctrine laid down by the Right
Hon. the Secretary of the Home Department (Sir J.
Graham), a doctrine which the great advocates of the
voluntary principle had ever contended for, but it was
new to him to hear it from the Treasury benches. It
struck at the root of all establishments, and hitherto bad
been disavowed by the Ministers of State.—(Cheers.)
The amendment ho had proposed was much more limited
than the Hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Roebuck) had as-
serted, it was rather, as the Noble Member for Shrop-
shire (Lord Clive) had stated, that as the Government
erected halls for the secular education of all, so this
would provide for religious instruction —(Loud
cheers.) That was the mode in which he conceived
it would operate. The Government had stated their
wish to promote the erection of halls, such was the
whole principle of the Bill, and his amendment merely
went to promote religion as well as secular education ; if
such a system was fatal to the measure, if religious in-
struction was considered contradictory of its whole de-
sign, its supporters must of course object to thf nomina-
tion of Roman Catholics.—(Cheers.) It had been said,
that if all the amendments taken together should be
passed, the whole complexion of the Bill would be al-
tered. So he thought, hut altered for the best.—(Loud
cheers from the Opposition benches.) The Secretary
for the Home Department had said that he (Lord John
Russell) was in error in imputing an exclusive spirit to
the constitution of Trinity College, Dublin.—("Hear,
hear," from Sir J. Graham.) Ho was ready to admit
that as to the permission of Roman Catholics to obtain
an education there he had been misapprehended ; but
from the fellowships Roman Catholics were excluded,
and as to the four medical professors—one for botany,
one for chemistry, and two others for medicine—the
regulation was that they must be Protestants. It was
only a short time sinee he bad seen an advertisement in a
Dublin paper, inviting competition for the chair of che-
mistry in the university ; besides other qualifications, it
was there stated that the candidate must be Protestant.
—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") That he considered
intolerance.—(Loud cheers.) Religious tests ought to
be abolished. If a chemist, remarkable for his talent,
and more especially for his proficiency in chemical re-
search, was to be considered incompetent to instruct
others in science, he did not hesitate to say a bigoted
and persecuted spirit dictated such a course—(Hear,
hear)—and yet it was what those must support who re-
jected his clause upon the grounds of its being a recog-
nition of religion in the measure. This clause he should
press to a division ; but if unsuccessful, the other, of
which ho had given notice, he would withdraw.
Sir R. INGLIS, in explanation, admitted that the
wrmonrg.
sin.
ctiliteAirwinFtoeriptDretawtiisobneedf
tcolabuesearl6.
Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) was right, and himself
testimony to
the truth of the Right Hon. Baronet's statement respect-
ingraad
ethe r
from
Belfast
the Institution.
religious
edu Nocation imputation
the
studentssr-a e s
being er
left in the hands of their parents. Ile considered the
measure involved the question of the national system of
education—a system which had worked so successfully,
and therefore opposed any proposition which would
interfere with its efficient working. He had opposed
his own Church in defending this opinion, and should
resist the Noble Lord's amendment even at the same risk.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the Amendment 42

-- -- Against
- - -

Majority against the amendment —75
The clause was then put and agreed to,

Clauses 2,3, 4,5, 6,7, 8, and 9 were then read, and
severally agreed to without discussion.
On clause 10 being read,
Mr. WYSE rose to object to it in its present form. It
provided that the Government should have the appoint-
ment of the professors, not only in the first instance, but
afterwards. There might be some reason, he admitted,
in the Government having the first appointments, but
not in the subsequent ones. Even as it regarded the
first, he did not think that the Government ought to
take any step without consulting the ecclesiastical au-
thorities at the head of the leading denominations in
Ireland. Leaving, however, the first appointment out of
consideration, he could not consent that any subsequent
appointment should be vested in the hands of the Go-
vernment. In Scotland, the appointment of many of
the professors was in the hands of the town councils of
the cities in which the colleges were situated ; others
were appointed by the head of the universities, or a ma-
jority of the professors. This practice worked well there.
He thonght something of the kind would be better than
vesting the patronage in the hands of the Government.
On the continent, and even in the University of Dublin
a similar mode prevailed to that he was about to pro-
pose. He would now move as an amendment to this
clause, " that on any future vacancy iu the professorships
of the intended colleges, such vacancy be filled up by
such candidates as, after due public examination, before
competent examiners hereafter to be appointed, shall be
declared by them (being otherwise qualified by character
and conduct) to be the most competent to the duties of
such professorships."
Sir R. PEEL thought that the better system would be
to treat each of these questions separately. It did
appear to him that there was no difference between the
Government and the opinions of the Hon. Gentleman.
He did look forward to the time when these colleges
might grow into a university. The question was, what
was to be done in the interim. They thought that it
would be unadvisable to take the power out of the hands
of the Crown of appointing the professors. There was
certainly nothing to prevent the Crown constituting a
Board in Dublin to investigate the qualifications of the
professors. It might be desirable that there should be a
great competition for the fellowships, and with respect
both to these and the professorships, they must adopt
the principle of competition, or they must leave it to the
responsibility of some authority to appoint to both. He
thought it better to avoid everything like favouritism,
and he had no doubt but those colleges would hereafter
give the supply to those colleges themselves. He could
conceive that no greater stimulus could be given to young
men than the prospect of one day filling those professor-
ships under which they had studied. The colleges had
to be founded and built, and after the appointment of the
first professors, say in 1848, the attention of Parliament
might be directed to the subject. Above all things, it
was necessary to avoid everything like party spirit, and
he did hope that, in the first place, the appointment of
those professors would be left to the Crown.
Lord EBRINGTON thought that it was necessary
to see their way in the appointment of these professors,
for what had been the conduct of the Government in
respect of the National Church and the Board of Edu-
cation. He must confess, that to him it was of a very
dubious character, and he did not exactly like these
sadden alterations in the mode of proceedings, and he
somewhat distrusted those general expressions of good-
will to the people of Ireland, which might mean any-
thing or nothing. In respect to the Board of Edu-
cation, he remembered that it was about eighteen
months before the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of
the Government had shown himself there, and he must
say that he was anxious to see that the intentions of the
Government were explicitly stated.
Mr. O'CONNELL rose to object to the clause before
the House. He would recommend the House to keep a
close hand on the powers sought to be obtained by Go-
vernment in this matter. The Right Hon. Baronet had
boasted of the success which had attended the Charitable
Bequests Bill. He (Mr. O'Connell) did not think that
the success which had attended that Committee was so
marked as the Right Hon. Baronet seemed to think it.
With respect to this clause, he objected to it because it
gave an unlimited authority to the Government to ap-
point to everything and to remove those whom they had
so appointed without any cause. There was not the
slightest restriction on them. They were not even re-
quired to name their elives. The House should have
the name and number, and the power given to
each. The Bill as it at present stood
had been viewed with abhorrence by the
priesthood of Ireland. He had heard it said that the
Government were deserving of the confidence of the
Irish people, but since they came into office what had
they done for Ireland ? Had they not appointed to the
offices in Ireland, persons the most opposed to the in-
terests of the Irish people ? Had they not appointed
bishops, the most inveterate in their hostility to the prin-
ciples of the Roman Catholic Church ? Had they, in
fact, appointed a single liberal in Ireland ? Had they
not rather deprived of the magistracy in Ireland those
gentlemen who were anxious to have an independent
Parliament for their own country ? And yet the Right
Honourable Baronet called upon the Irish Members to
give him their unlimited confidence in every thing. He
was opposed to the clause.
Sir J. GRAHAM said the Government neither asked
nor expected any compliment at the hands of the Hon.
and Learned Member for Cork. They had endeavoured
to consult the best interests of the country, in the ap-
pointments made is Ireland. The Hon. Member for
Waterford (Mr. Wyse) had eulogised the system pur-
sued in Scotland, of electing the professors to their uni-
versities, but that system, he was perfectly certain,
could not be pursued in Ireland, and for many reasons.
He had stated more than once, that all the regulations
of the colleges would be such as to prevent any religious
jealousy. In the course of a few years, Parliament
would be enabled to judge of the efficacy of the
system, and to alter if it could not approve of it.
He hoped that the Honourable Member for Waterford
would not press his clause.
After a few words from Mr. WYSE in explanation,
Mr. WAEBURToN and Mr. Fox MAULE supported the
proposition of the Government.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL said, that if they did not
change the present form of the Bill, whatever steps they
might take to pass it, they would not satisfy the people.
Mr. SHEIL said that they had a perfect model in
Trinity College, Dublin. They were considering two
methods, one was a selection by means of public com-
petition, and the other was by the choice of the Crown.
Which was the best ? In the former case they would be
selecting men of known experience, and in the other
instance they would become objects of suspi-
cion, no matter how pure were their motives.
Their appointments might in future bo good, but
their past appointments deserved a vast deal of con-
demnation. Taking the appointments in the bench and
in the church in the aggregate—there were no doubt
some exceptions—they were not such as to conciliate
the people of Ireland. Were they to trust to experience
or to hope ?—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. SHAW said there was an erroneous impressien
as to the amount of emolument given to fellows, It was
stated by an Hon. Member opposite to amount to 2,0001.,
but it only amounted to 1,5001. Do what the Govern-
ment might, the gentry of Ireland, Roman Catholic as
well as Protestant, would still send their children to the
Dublin University. He had no doubt these new colleges
would supply the want that now existed for an interme-
diate education, and it would keep nearer home many
who were now too young to be sent to Trinity College,
but who were now obliged to go there. He had heard
the Hon. Member for Waterford say that a system of
practical education was wanted for Ireland, such as for
qualifying for engineers, &c., and in that expression he
fully concurred, and so far these new institutions would
be valuable.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he should confess that as they
got on with this subject not much light was thrown upon
it by the arguments elicited. The First Lord of the
Treasury said that Ireland should have a new university
at which a certain degree of education would be con-
ferred, but from all he had heard on this point he should
say he was not much enlightened by it. It appeared
that the Dublin University was one in which only the
higher classes in Ireland were educated ; but
he did think the system followed in that in-

stitution should be better defined than it had been.
He did not think the Right Honourable Gentleman who
had just sat down need despair of finding men who were
in favour of the existing system of national education in
Ireland, to fill any vacancy that might occur in the
bench of Bishops. He would be ready to support his
Hon. Friend with regard to the words at the end of the
clause, and he would vote for leaving them out.
Lord J. MANNERS would be prepared at the proper
time to vindicate the course the Irish Bishops had taken
on the subject of national education in Ireland.
The Committee then divided—
For the amendment .
Against it
_ _ .

Majority against the amendment —96
Sir HENRY W. BARRON then moved the following
amendment to the same clause (10):—That, previous to
the first appoiatment of any rector, president, head of
college, or professor, under this Act, the Board of Edu-
cation in Ireland shall have power to present three names
to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who must select one
of the said persons to fill such office. He wished to press
the amendment on the attention of the House.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM observed that he was greatly
afraid that the amendment proposed by the Hon. Gen-
tleman would have a tendency very considerably to
diminish the efficacy of the Board. He was satisfied if
the amendment were carried one or two Members would
refuse to act ; and he therefore trusted that it would not
be pressed.
The amendment was then put and negatived without
a division.
The original motion was then put, that clause 10
stand part of the Bill, on which the House divided, when
there appeared—
For the motion 129
Against it
Majority for the motion
Clauses 11, 12, and 13 were then read and agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and asked
leave to sit again to-morrow (this day).
The House then resumed.
MERCHANT SEAMENS' BILL,

On the motion that the House resolve itself into Com-
mittee on this Bill,
Mr. Wawn, Mr. Foster, Dr. Bowring, and several
other Hon. Members, objected to going into Committee
at such a late hour of the night.
Sir C. NAPIER was in favour of going into Commit-
tee, as the measure was one that ought not to be delayed.
The gallery was then cleared for a division, when the
numbers were—
For going into Committee
Against it 22
Majority

The Chairman reported progress, and asked leave to
sit again on Wednesday.
FOREIGN LOTTERIES.
On the motion of Sir JAMES GRAHAM,
The Foreign Lotteries Bill was read a second time.
STATUTE LABOUR (SCOTLAND) BILL.
This Bill was read a third time.

On the motion for going into a Committee of Supply.

Lord PALMERSTON-wished to know in whai kite
the completion of the contract stood with respect to the
supply of muskets ?
Captain BOLDER() said that 14,000 had been com-
pleted out of the contract.
Lord PALMERSTOII wished to know what mea-
sures had been taken for ensuring the defence of the
dockyards ? The system of steam navigation had en-
tirely altered the whole of the practice of naval warfare,
and he thought that some provision ought to be made to
meet it.

Sir R. PEEL said that votes had already been taken
on this point, both in the ordnance and navy estimates.
What they were precisely he would not say, but the
engineers were, at the present moment, engaged at
Sheerness, Chatham, and Dover, in ascertaining what
the state of those ports was, and as soon as they had
finished their duty they would officially report to the
Government.
Sir C. NAPIER wished to know whether any means
were to be taken for organising the coast-guard and
fishermen along the coast as sea-fencibles, as had been
done in former years. It was a matter of great import-
ance, and ought to be attended to.
Sir R. PEEL said that there was no point which had
not been attended to by the Government ; but whether
any measures would be taken for the organisation of the
sea-fencibles, he could not at the present moment say.
The report on supply was then brought up, and the
items severally read.
DOGS BILL.
On the motion of Mr. LIDDELL, the Dogs Bill was
read a third time, and passed.
LUNATICS BILL. _ .

Mr. M. SUTTON moved that the House do go into
Committee on the Lunatics Bill.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE objected. He thought the Bill
had not been properly examined by Hon. Members and
should, therefore, take the sense of the House on the
subject before the Speaker should leave the Chair.
Mr. M. SUTTON said that if the Bill were not then
proceeded with, it could not possibly be read on Wed-
nesday, and failing that day, he did not see that any
other day could be given for the purpose.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE did not wish the Bill to come
on at all. He thought it would be better to have a Par-
liamentary inquiry, as there had been none since 1816
on the subject, and many abuses had crept into the
whole system of treatment of lunatics since that time.
Then a Bill greatly superior :to the present might be
brought in in the course of next session.
The House went into Committee, pro forma, and then
resumed.