The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-14 00:00:00

NO. VI.-THE OBSERVER.

The Observer is the property of Mr. Clement, the
owner of Belts Life in London. The Observer is a
journal which publishes no country edition on the Sa-
turday, but appears on the Sunday morning, and is
chiefly circulated amongst the upper classes. Great ex-
pense is incurred in obtaining the very latest intelligence
up to the hour of going to press : thus if any event of
importance occur in London or its vicinity, even so late
as twelve o'clock on Saturday night, or very early on
the Sunday morning, the Observer will be sure to record
it. And this is not done in a few words : the most mi-
nute details relative to the occurrence—be it an acci-
dent, an offence, or any event of moment—w;ll be given
with the mention of the fact. The reader of the daily
journals on the Monday morning will invariably per-
ceive numerous quotations from the Observer.
The circulation of this journal is not extensive. It is
now under 5,000. Its advertisements are however nu-
merous and well paid ; and it is an especial organ for
the insertion of " Births," " Deaths," and " Marriages."
The principal editor is Mr. Doxat, a gentleman of
extensive information, great experience and considerable
learning. Mr. James Grant, the celebrated author of
" Random Recollections of the Lords and Commons,"
" Impressions of Ireland," &e., is cne of the chief writers
engaged upon THE OBSERVER. The notices of new
works and theatrical reviews in this journal are written
with great talent and impartiality, and are quoted as
good authority.

GALVANIC RINGS (GALVANISM.)

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.
Sin,—ln all ages and in all times something or other
very wonderful has been put forth by doctors in order
to create mystery and confusion in the public mind as
regards the cure of disease. Under their patronage we
have of late years had Homoeopathy and Animal Mag-
netism. Is it therefore to be wondered at that persons
should take advantage of the gross ignorance which they
know pervades society as regards the healing art, and
that to make money they should bring forth such tWngs
as galvanic rings for the cure of diseases ? But, we ask.
who are the responsible parties for such dAttAions ?
Why, doctors, because they not only themselves set the
example directly, but foster them by their false teaching
in the medical schools ! Let us a4k one more ques.ion.
Could any Hygoist be imposed upon by such quackeries
as Animal Magnetism, Hotmeopathy, or galvanic rings?
Most assuredly not, and for this reason, that the
Hygeian system teaches 114 n the nature and functions of
his body, and he knows that in order to eradicate disease
of any kind, he must cleanse his body and purify his
blood by proper purgatives, and since Animal Magne-
tism, Homoeopathy, galvanic rings, or the other charms
cannot do this, he is satisfied that they must be delu-
sions. Doctcrs also take advantage of such impositions
as galvanic rings in this way. When a patient emu.
plains of having derived no benefit from them, oh they
say, " Why don't you place yourself under a regular
medical man, and don't meddle with quackery?" when, in
truth and in fact, they themselves are the supporters
of it.—We are, Sir, your obedient servant,
MORRISON AND MOAT,

For and on behalf of the body of llygeists.
British College of Health, New-road,
London, April 12, 1845.

THE GRANT TO MAYNOOTH.

The following is a fuller report than we had room for on
Saturday morning :
Mr. GLADSTONE, who spoke as follows :—Sir, I am sure
the House will excuse me if I profess my anxiety to take the
earliest opportunity of delivering my sentiments in the debate.
I feel it my duty to apologise to the House for having suffered
one occasion in which this measure was discussed to pass by
without expressing an opinion upon it, or having given a vote.
The truth is that I did not think I could vote on the division
of last week, without stating to the House the reasons on which
that. vote was founded, and I did not on the other hand feel
that I could put the House in possession of my views of the
entire case until the Bill was printed, and until I was enabled to
take a view of all its provisions. It was on that account, and
not from any desire to avoid the responsibility in-
cumbent on me, in common with every Member
of this House, and incumbent on me, for some special reasons,
frankly to disclose all the sentiments I entertain on this ques-
tion. I have no reason whatever to complain of the course
taken by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for the
University of Oxford, who felt it his duty to call for an ex-
pression of this House. Representing, as he did, a very
powerful and wide-spread sentiment among the people of this
country, and entertaining sentiments the dictates of a con-
scientious conviction, I could not be surprised at the course
pursued by my Hon. Friend. I fully admit that the minority
of last week did represent the general and prevailing sense of
the people of England and Scotland.—( Hear, hear.) But,
making that admission, I must state, for my own part, that'
after the most full and mature consideration of the question in
the position in which it stands, I am prepared, in opposition to
what I believe to be the prevailing opinion of the people of
England and Scotland—of my own constituents, from whom I
deeply regret to differ, and to my own deeply-cherished predi-
lections—l am, I say, prepared to give my deliberate and
anxious support to the measure before the House.—( This an-
nouncement was received with loud and prolonged cheering
from the Opposition.) I will advert to some reasons which
have been advanced in support of the measure, and which, I
confess, appear to me inadequate to its support. My Right
Hon. Friend, in the closing part of his address, observed
that the grant he proposed amounted to no more than a liberal
and honourable construction of that compact. My Right Hon.
Friend remarked, that that compact, the Act of Union, he did
not interpret in a literal sense, but in that spirit of equity
which ought to subsist between the English and Irish people.
I confess that doctrine greatly facilitates my approach to the
consideration of this question. I believe, with the Right Hon.
Oentleman, the Member for Dungarvon, that there is some-
thing like a compact in this case. I do not mean with instru-
ments binding the parties to all eternity ; but I mean
a state of circumstances and relations between the
Parliament and the people of Ireland, which precludes
the question from being considered as a new one, for it has
been a matter of discussion in a very considerable degree in
previous debates upon the annual vote to Maynooth. But, Sir,
I do not think that argument is altogether applicable to the
present question. I have to consider the measure on other
grounds—to consider it in the circumstances of a new measure.
With respect to the contract, I will quote a few words of Mr.
Peicival, which have net been yet mentioned in these discus-
sions. Mr. Percival said, in 1812, that he supported the
grant as it stood, because it was one of those which
the Parliament of Ireland thought they should preserve
at the union ; because he found it in fact given over to Eng-
land as a part of the union. If the grant were fairly open
to opposition after the union, he should certainly be disposed
to resist it, becanse he thought it in principle wrong for a
State endeavouring to establish a particular system of reli-
gion, to provide for the maintenance, ecclesiastical endowment,
propagation, and encouragement of another religion. He
(Mr. Percival) found, that a Parliament composed of Irish-
men, possessing the whole religious endowments of the
country, altering the law for the purpose of enabling parties
to establish colleges, and making, in the first instance, con-
tributions in support of a college, which was continued
from year to year. After quoting some further
observations of Mr. Percival, the Right Honourable
Gentleman read the following extract from the same
speech. " Under these circumstances, I say it would be most
ungenerous in you (the English Parliament) to avail yourselves
of that numerical superiority and strength for the purpose of
withdrawing the grant that has been conferred by the Irish
Parliament,and which, I am confident, thelrishParliament never
would have withdrawn." But he found that in the declaration
of Mr. Perceval, whose whole conscientious convictions were
opposed to the grant,whose Government was founded upon prin.
elides of resistance to every concession, great or small, to Ro-
man Catholics, but a man whose native honesty and
candour led him to recognise the obligations of good faith
and which led him to make the declaration to which he had
alluded. When he looked at the fixity of the grant for su
many years, he could not think that at this itioment theie
could be any doubt with respect to the recognition of the
but he felt that the changes which were
grant by holiameni,
now proposed to be made were so material with respect to the
foundation of the College, as to make the tmestien
almost al-
together a new one. He Would not 'at all Nava referred to the
question of contract, had not so many petitioni 'l7l. h 1 .1 '
trod denier that' it seen
fisted, presented to that House referred in it en
,
isted, or that Parliament was boundh
taeto
consider was, the proposal of the Right Hon. l
ll
i the
head of the Government, effected
vow
lli
founcianvil of the
pat....,.:.
merely I "
mereiy going to change the going to
He was not
annual into a permanent one, but he atgoing to place the building under

the immediate control of Government, thereby establishing a
connexion with it as close as it could well be. The increase of
money appeared to him must important, not simply because it
was an increase of so many thousands, but because it altered the
character of the State in relation to the College. Originally it
certainly was not intended that the State should entirely maintain
this college; and the Duke of Wellington declared that the
institution was not to be entirely supported by the State. In
fact the eight or nine thousand a year voted to Maynooth was
only understood as the part of a collection made for its support.
The State was only one of its contributors. But it was clear
they were now going to depart from that system. The whole
plan was about to be reconstructed. The professors who had
but scanty salaries, were now about to be liberally rewarded,
and the aliment, education, and care of the pupils there was to
be taken under the consideration of the State. The basis of
the College was about to be changed a most
material change, but that change he had made
up his mind to support.—( Hear, hear.) He entirely re-
pudiated one argument that had been employed in support of
the increased grant—that of restitution. He disclaimed it in
every point of view—in point of law and constitution, and on the
ground of its being contrary to everything he knew of history.
He would not now go into the details on that argument, but if
that was to be done as an act of restitution, it was one of the
most shameful confessions that could be made by the Legisla-
ture.—( Hear, hear.) The Government made a gift of a
shilling or a sixpence in the pound. If this were made a case
of restitution, would it not be most shabby, worse than shabby
—infamous and disgraceful to offer such terms ?—( Hear.)
He, therefore, had nothing to do with the argument of restitu-
tion. Then as to the funds which are to provide for the educa-
tion of the priests, and to the class of society from which these
were selected, he thought, with regard to the Roman Catholic
priests, they were selected from the only class they could be
taken from. Reference too had been made to Germany, and
the reason asked why more aristocratic persons entered a:
Roman Catholic priests in Germany than there did in Ireland ?
In answer to this he could state that in Germany there was no '
other church ; but that was not the case in Ireland. In Ger-
many the Romish Church bore something of the same relation
there as the Established Church of England did in England.
Therefore, he did not think that any great alteration was needed
on that head, but did think that, whatever might be eiven
to add to the professors' dignity and ease, would probably
tend to smooth down the course of education. It was well
known that, from the extremely small salaries of the pro-
fessors at Maynooth, they were induced, as soon as possible,
to seek out district churches, in order to better their posi-
tion, and by these means it was not likely for the college to
retain the very best theological teachers. By increasing the
salaries this defect would be remedied. Another argument
had been used as to thoseselect of this measure, which was ridi-
culous. It had been assertre that this grant was to be voted
in order to the increasing and prumulgating of Protestantism
in Ireland. Now this argument appealed to him as reasonable
as to say that by the invention of printing books had become
scarce, and that locomotion was a means to 'retard commerce.
It was hard to say, that by having given them these extra
means, you have weakened their cause. Indeed, he thought it I
the meanest argument he had ever heard brought before a
public assembly; therefore he would throw that entirely our of
his arguments. Then, in approaching this matter, he would
take it as it appeared to him at the present time, and under the
present circumstances. If he had had any agency at all in the
matter, it would have been probably used to have retarded the
scheme as at present proposed. Now, it was a general
rule whirls had been laid down, and which involved
a very popular argument, that those who paid the
I taxation of a country should share the benefits and pri •
vileges which it had to offer, and the question which he
I had to ask himself was, whether his mind and conscience
recognised any firm, fixed, and permanent principle, which
would justify him in setting at nought these popular—and for
that very reason, important—considerations? Nothing had
more completely satisfied him of the difficulty of finding ade-
quate arguments in opposition to this measure than the nature
of the arguments that had been brought forward and relied on
on the part of its opponents.—( Hear, hear.) Almost every
man who had spoken against this Bill had founded his main
arguments on some small question of detail. The opponents
of the measure had not ventured to rise to the height and
breadth of the question.—( Cheers.) His Hon. Friend the
Member for Newcastle (Mr. Colquhoun) though be had cer-
tainly reserved to himself the right of falling back upon the
ground of religion—had not pressed forward that ground as
the most convincing and appropriate. The arguments w tech
he had thought best suited to address to the Parliament of
England were arguments he small points of detail. his objection
was principally to the structure of the Bill. 'I he questions lie
had raised were mere questions for Committee, and he had not
laid down any broad ground for his objection to a mea-
sure which had for its object such vast and important
changes. His Hon. Friend had also stood upon the failure of
that object, as far as it at present had been carried out. One
of his grounds had been that the endowment. of Maynooth was
an experiment of Mr. Pitt, and that that experiment had failed.
But that seemed to him the most superficial, partial, and unfair
deduction.—(Cheers.) lie begged to inquire whether it had
ever been Mr. Pitt's calculation to found the college anti to do
nothing more? No; the view which Mr. Pitt had taken was
to train the priesthood, and then to find provision for their
subsequent support.—( Cheers.) To a certain, and only to a
limited extent, they had trained the priesthood ; but they had
not made—they had not endeavoured to make—any provision
for their subsequent support. That might be right, or it might
be wrong; but it would be ridiculous—no, he would not say
ridiculous, but it was most unfair—when only part of the experi-
ment had been tried, to arrive at the conclusion that the whole
experiment had failed. If the experiment were to be tried, it
ought to be tried completely. They ought no to try a small
part, and then argue upon the failure of the whole.—( hear,
hear.) His Hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle had also
spoken much of the defective state of the College of elaynoot h
as to literature. His Hon. Friend was generally accurate, but
he did not know whether he was or was not so on the present
occasion ; but he had made a point founded upon the defective
literature of Maynooth College. But could any one look at
the state of Ireland—could any one look at the divisions on the
subject of religion which disturbed that country—could any
one reflect on the history of Ireland for mazy centuries, and
especially during the last century—and, giving their due
weight to these topics, could any one, for any single moment,
suppose that if the literature of the college of Maynooth
were defective, that that was a ground for refusing 1
the present measure ?—(Loud cheers.) That was a
question of detail, anti what an argument was it in cons I
trast with the matter of the petitions which had been pre- '
serded, with the movement which had taken place on the
subject, with the strong religious feelings of the opponents
of the measures out of doors. His Hon. Friend shrunk from
the grounds, and from the arguments of those petitions, and of
that movement. He was afraid to meet fully and fairly the
main principle, and he confined himself to those secondary
considerations which did not necessarily interfere with the suc-
cess of the Bill, and which might he reified hereafter. His
Hon. Friend had also alluded to the working of the system of
education in Germany, and had referred to the case of a man
—the same, he believed, who bad seceded.—(" No, not the
same," from so-ne Hon. Member.) Well, they had better
not take any collateral debate, and he would reserve the main
line of his observations. Considering the popular line of
argument which had been taken in favour of this measure,
and the movement in support of it, the burden of proof
rested with its opponents, and he asked what was the ground
in the law or Constitution of the country, and not only in
the law and Constitution, but in the convictions of the peo-
ple, which was the living basis of the Constitution, what
ground of objection—strong, definite, and permanent— could
be taken against the Bill ? What he was interested to
inquire was, whether there was any permanent
means of resisting the principle upon which this measure was
founded? He, of course, did not allude to physical resistance.
He had never entertained a doubt that, at all times and under
all circumstances, this country would be able to bear up against
the efforts of physical resistance and opposition ; but though he
entertained this opinion, yet he thought that the circumstance
of that resistance ought not to be excluded from consideration.
He was not afraid to have it east upon him that he paid too
high a regard to the means of conciliating opposition. it was
a paradox in human nature to deny that conciliation was a
grateful or that it was not generally a politic course of action—
( Cheers. )—and he would willingly submit to reproach and mis-
construction rather than refuse to grant what was fair and
generous to a people who were their fellow-Christians
and their fellow-men.—( Loud cheers.) But, in examin-
ing this question of principle to the best of his abilities—
though there was little of that principle relied upon in the
speech of his Hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle—he
found, on one side and on the other, very extreme opinions.
On one side it was contended that any religious endowment
whatever was contrary to natural justice. On the other
side it was asserted that a State endowment Was contrary to
religious duty. He could not hold one of these opinions or the
other. He could not hold that it was contrary to natural jus-
tice that a government should support one religion in prefer-
ence to another, and he believed that few men would think so
if they considered the paradoxes involved in the proposition.
The Hon. Member had referred to the case of India. They
did not, as a rule, interfere with the religion of the natives.
Whether they did so sufficiently was a question worthy of con-
sideration, but it was one into which he would not now
enter. But in India there was a Mahomedan and a Hindoo
population which supplied the taxes to the British Govern-
ment, and they did not hesitate to apply without a scruple,
and with no sparing hand, such portions as they could afford
for the encouragement of the Christian religion. He did not
think this contrary to natural justice. He thought it consistent
with the highest justice, and with the most grave and se-
rious considerations. But it might be said that the people
of India were not Christians, and that a broad distinction was
to be drawn between Christians and all other sects and classes
of religious worshippers ; but to test this principle he would
put to all who belonged to his religion—he would put the case
of Queen Elizabeth and King Edward, at the time of the Re-
formation. As they were all aware, the Reformation did not
spring from the ground. It descended from above. It was
handed down by the bishops, the clergy, and the monarch be-
fore they impregnated the people with doctrines that were then
new. The great mass of the people were impregnated by those
above them. He did not enter into an 7 other questions to which
those troubled times gave rise. He said nothing as to the means
used for propagating the new opinions. He said nothing as
to the persecutions and cruelties which then had been • prac- 1
tised ; but he asked, was there any one who held that it was the
duty of Queen Elizabeth to have refrained from endeavour- I
ing to communicate to her people that whi ih in her belief 1
was the greatest blessing she could impart ? If any one enter- 1
tained such an opinion he was not one of them, and he most I
emphatically protested against the truth or reasonableness of '
any such doctrine. But he could no more agree with those
who contended that a State endowment was contrary to reli-
gious
duty. Those who supported that proposition seemed to
confuse the duties which a man performed in his individual
capacity and the duties he was called upon to perform as
a member of society.--(Hear, hear.) In his individual
capacity such a man was his own ruler, Each man was
not only allowed, but was by duty bound, to form an
opinion for himself on those serious and sacred subject; ,a 1 I
concessions anti mutual
but in civil arid political society eash man was depentle-ii
society upon the
existed
ws.every man
surrender.—( Loud Opposition cheeirtsh.iefrel.sloe
man was
it,heObnwsdneilcmft°llaaiPtocial. of his ow ti feelings—if every
e--w,twever that man was that
insisted
mande-
terminated
would
stfuorl
,lht
to
iwus
tlsstulueerthe sente(nLeueuodhieciltiemerus.s;
iwholesco u rosfe,suu:hieetty
tpehluirrsosw"Heoldhne.thFriend the Member for NiewucslaPsnde—had admitted that
he could not bind every body to the adopt ion of Isis principle.
wHaeytsr utisitueudgtihtt, a tauhde
Isiheo'sutlidlitiotbt
ho glinit i,s sun daetr s ttzadt.
pelulpelehawd
eerie-
happy who enjoyed the inestimable advantage of religious
unity, and with whom that religious unity marked the conduct
of their legislation,
blessings,
placed that advantage at 'he head of
all civilhe
would and suoucti a
el
a r n aiprila% saet hhye wwot,uthl (1101119(.1:i
withholding
earn popularity
his
putipliauriiutuy
that fertile, indeed, of misery and sorrow were the religious
dissensiees which prevailed amongst them. 13:et he could not
say
tial
thattrutn this
mould
de
ffuortirund; ssuachttsinalecturodyy eafildwerieirlittoe
tahrn.l substim '
Ireland. He did not And in this principle - • 'd P"Ple of
, Bible geeeee epee which the . wind e 1 a clear and intelli-
vsliieli every, body could fee, 3... tor ever rest—something
agree with ;.. .. and understand,' if they did not
a . •e ••• Hut it might be said, " Ilere is
particular form of religion to be established, which,
under any other circumstances, you could rejset and
cltsepprov.e of." Was this a broad and pcsietanent ground on
t7hhi si cmh e at hs,e, eParliament ee"lel stand and refuse their consent to
t.i:oitsaet
who opposed
was the natureitoeb
objected
e et itieedotiospaonsiyt opposition
atbol
itsiitis_
tam ? Some of
ment, whilst others entertained opinions exactly the reverse of
this. What permanence or stability of resistance could be ex-
pected from a body of men, song of whom were as wide apart

from the others as were the poles? Here was his Hon. Frien
the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. H. highs),
who stood, as he himself, under different circumstances, and
in a different condition of the country might Lave stand, adv -
! eating the exclusive endowment of the Church f
rejected,but if this Bill ss_ter(een)
eers. amongst what comeanions would
he find himself .e
But that was not all—for a large
i proportion of the rest of those who opposed the Bill, but ei ho did
not go the length of abjuring all endowments. altogether re-
fused to follow his Hon. Friend in his support of the Church of
England, and laid claim to an equal endowment for all forms of
Protestants. Yes; opposition was one thing, but the esta-
blishment of a broad, just, and yermanent policy was soother.
—( Cheers.) It was very easy to form a combination—he used
the word in no offensive sense—by an accidental conjunc•
' tion of those who (Heed on almost every subject, %high might
effect the immediate purpose in view ; but when they came to
ask upon what principle a Government was to rule, or a people
to be governed, what answer could they give ?—( Loud cheers.)
In this ca'e, what answer would his Hon. Friend give to the
people of Ireland ? When that question once presented itself.
a new order of ideas was started, and fresh obstacles rose up to
the mind in a frightful and gigantic form.—(Cheers.) fhe
opponents of this measure ought to state to the Irish people
upon what principle they proposed to proceed. Did the oppo-
sition to this Bill support any such principle as that for which
his Honourable Friend contended ? Del they propose to con-
fine all endowment to the Church of England ?—( Hear, hear. )
There was notoriously a violation of that principle in a new cue
every recurring year. It was not enough, he said, for them to
object to this or that. They must show some intelligible plan
of proceeding, on which they were to take their stand. One
prneiple was the total abrogation of all religious endowment.
That principle was supported neither by the House nor by the
country ; and it would, consequently, be ridiculous to speak
of that as the fixed principle of their conduct. He
would dismiss that altogether. Then others said
" Recognise the differ, nt forms of Protestantism, but exclude
whatever is in commuion with the Church of Rome." This
was not good in a constitutional or in a religious point of view.
He did not understand what was meant by a thing of so unde-
fined and vague a meaning as that which they called Protes-
tantism. By this he meant to convey no reproach. He was
quite aware that Protestantism was a something quite definite
to some minds. Ile knew that in the minds of many ten it
was something snore than a mere negation—that it wee a sub-
stantive reality, and definite embodiment of truth. But whe-
ther this was so or not, it was clear that the Constitution did
not recognise that which was called Protestantism. It was true
that the Constitution required the Sovereign to be a Protes-
tant. but the word there used was made definite by the Act of
Parliament ; for the Act required that the Sovereign eseeni be
a communicant of the Church of England. So he said that be
could not, understand, and that the Constitution did not recog-
that which was so vague, so indefinite, that which floated
and varied every day. Was it not impossible, then, for the op-
ponents of the measure to take their stand upon Protestantism
lie would not open any religious discussion, but what he in-
sisted upon was, the difficulty of making this ground a clear,
intelligible, substantive basis of public policy. He under-
stood the- definite alliance between the Constitution and the
Church of England, and he also was aisle to understand the
connexion between the State anti the Established Church of
Scotland, but that appeal, he confessed, was weak to his reli-
gious feelings which was founded upon negative terms and
things which were left in uncertainty and vagueness. Re•
markable were the words of Mr. Burke, contained in the last
letter he had written ou public affairs. These words had been
written in the later years of his life, when his mind was under
a solemn impression of the reality of future things. In 1799
Mr. Burke had said, " It is not agreeable to piety or principle
to eive any
without negative relig:on. Such is Protes-
tantism withhold these privileges from
jtout a privilegese rete od, a
those who entertain clear and intelligible views of religious
faith, anti from whom we do not greatly differ, is neither just
nor reasonable." Mr. Burke had then begun to find that the
exclusion of the Roman Catholics was impolitic and unjust,
and such had been his opinion in the later years of his life.
He was aware of the religious feefings of many
Members of that House and of the country; but,
being so aware of that religious feeling, he implored
those who rested upon that feeling to consider how it stood.
Ile would not make any minute comparisons as to the dif-
ferent forms of religious persuasion, but had they such reli-
gious consistency as justified them in pleading religions
.cruples ?—( Hear, hear. ) To judge rightly of this question
they ought to put themselves in the position of Roman Catho-
liss.—( Loud Opposition cheers.) They °sight always to argue
from the point of view in which they stood with whom they
were dealing. He should, indeed, be surprised if any one
doubted so obvious a principle. Did they not give votes of
money to other religious bodies ? Would their conduct in
that respect bear scrutiny ? Had not a measure winch, dur-
ing the last session of Parliament, had been introduced by his
Right Hen. Friend (Sir R. Peel), been called the " Sociniau
Endowment" Bill by licensed politicians ; but they needed
not to travel so far back for a real Sociniati Endowment Bill,
for every Appropriation Bill which they passed at the con-
clusion of each session, contained votes of money for the en-
dowment of Socinians. He might be told that this was only
done from year to year, and might at any time be stopped.
That seeemed to him more a technical than a substantial ob-
jection. The question he put to himself was, would it be
stopped ?—( Cheers. 1 Would any one propose its disconti-
nuance? Ile might lament it, but if it were not to be
altered, it was dishonest to refuse to recognise it.—(Cheers. t
His Right Honourable Friend had presented a petition from
the Remonstrant Synod of Ulster. They had the candour to
admit that they received money front the State. The doe-
trines they supported were Arian principles, and feeling that
they were thus further removed from the religion of the State
than the Roman Catholics, they could not understand why, as
they received a State endowment, the College of maynooth
was not entitled to receive it also. If those petitioners did not
understand the reason, he must be a sanguine man who ex..
peeted that the Roman Catholics would understand it. He
could not, then, find in the practice of the Constitution, or in
the conviction of his opponents, any substantial, fixed, arid per-
manent ground for opposing the present measure.—(Hear,
hear.) It was stated that the Romish Church demanded
greater independence—that there was something peculiar to
that Church which rendered the endowment objectionable,
but it was manifest that in this objection the opponents cf
the measure had descended from the main ground of their
principle.—( Hear, hear.) They must sit her be able to
propound a constitutional profession of faith fur which they
l would claim a perfect uniformity, or they must sdiret that the
' Roman Catholic Church, like any other religious beedv, was
entitied to take her chance in urging such claims wren Parlia-
ment as she best could. Belig thus unable tee ei,eeeer any
ground which would warrant the Legislatuee in pursuing the
course of exclusion against the Roman (2.atliolies by the rejec-
tion of this Bid, he would proceed 'co say that the boon con-
ferred by the Bill was a great bo'en. It was most imps): tent as
to the principle it involved. -tie would not refer to it if it were
disputable, but there eenild be no doubt that the Bill. though.
it did not decide the question s the payment of the Roman
Catholic clergy, did most emphatically and conclusively, decide
the religious objection to that measure.—(Loud Opposition
cheer*.) Insuperable obstacles might arise upon ether
grounds, but let them not conceal the fact that the mea-
sure of his Right Honourable Friend, brought forward in
the year feels, decided any religious objections which could be
raised on that question.—(Cheers.) In another point of view.
this was a great measure. He slid not attribute its greatness
to the thousands of pounds which swelled its importance, but
the House should know that never had there been such an en-
dowment granted on such terms. He did not intend to im-
pugn the principle upon those grounds—on the contrary, he
quite supported it. Only let it not be said that this was a
paltry gift. He did not know what was the amount of the en-
dowment to Trinity College, Dublin; but if that were larger
in amount, it was granted on different terms. It was usual to
grant to the Established Church honorary privileges suet
pecuniary endowments; hut they imposed upon that Church
corresponding restrictions--they regulated the pet formanee
of her service—they restrained the assemblies of her clergy_..
they attached to their gifts various conditions.—( Hear. hear. )
He was now speaking of general rules. It was the case in
Germany—it was the same in France. There was something
in all these eases of giving and taking between the Church anct
the State. it was well known that in France and Austria no
Papal bull was valid without the consent of the State. The
Government claimed the right of assent over all Papal ordi
nances, spiritual and secular. And so, though this might be a
limited endowment, it showed a spirit of confidence and kind-
ness which he trusted would be appreciated.—( Cheers. ) The
gift was fettered by no condition, and in this respect was
an endowment more liberal than that which the State
conferred upon the Church of this country, and upon the
church of any other countries. He said, then, that thisletes
an Act
,of great importance, and a boon of great ruagui..
tude ; and being thus a boon of great magnitude, has
trusted that if they had made up their minds that eircum-,
stances required it from them—if they did not find in their
hearts and consciences any permanent principle of resistance
to this measure—he trusted that they would givei t freely.--.
(Loud cheers.) It might be said that this would operate as e
premium to sedition. It might be so regarded. It might bet
accepted in a wrong, an ungracious, and ungrateful spirit—.
but of that they had no right to think. If this were of itsete
a just and a righteous Act—with reference to the circuits-
stances of the country and of the time—they should not allot"
themselves to be governed by a consideration of the mannerist
which it would be received. He had lately read the worth oC
an Hon. Gentleman, who was well known and was as
Member of that House (Mr. O'Connell), which, being
characteristic of his humour and point, the How.
would perhaps permit him to read. He said " Agitation,
thank you; Conciliation-hall, I am much obliged to you;
Repeal Association, Maymeh, ought to pray for you."—.
(Laughter, and cries of " Hear, hear.") Well, the doctrius
, he would suppose was held, or might be arid, in Ireland, that
this was a premium to agitation, and an encouragement to
further agitation.—(Hear, hear.) But he hoped those wises
held this argument would remember that agitation was a two..
edged weapon—that it might be used on the one side as well.
as on the other ; and that, if the Irish people offered a tempting
field for agitation, it was equally possible, from a view of the
for a.
eseddeuperteteave te
4 :
thetpheet istteakbpnl table, ,tlTtthhi petitions
sh
thish‘vandisctuhhbajhteec night
was satisfied would yet be laid ght been laid upon the table, and
t would
eflog neouteltersys, teiemprteianigat,iengotit.l—ess(iHnevaitri, a
this inviting, not
hear.) less
H
alike both the one agitation and the other. He trusted that
a gentler and wiser spirit would prevail
among the Meta.
hers of this House—(Hear)—and likewise over the general
mind of the country. lie trusted that
in Ireland, as in Eng.,
land, parties would feel convinced that they ottght not to Press
too far on either side their ea 1 • l •
it claims and extreme opinions.
If parties held that religionst was involved in this question, and
that it did not admit of two he would ask, it
such was to be the state er things, what was to be the fate of
this country but to be hopelessly torn by endless disputes, with
the loss, he feared, even o f that religion which parties hones let
professed to inculcate.—(Hear.) B•
But lie cherished the hose
that these unfavourable anticipations
would not be realised;
that there would be a disposition to consider how impossible
it was to live in a country where there were different reli.
pious persuasions, if every one was to urge his own claims to
an extreme point. He trusted that teen would refuse to sec.
render themselves to the unchecked dominion of these feelings,
and that they would acquiesce in a just consideration sai
the claims of others. Ile knew it would be said that they had
admitted the principle of this measurs, and that it would after.
wards be carried out to its extreme length. That was an ar-
gument which it was difficult absolutely to disprove ; but it
may be far from being true as applied to political matters gene,
rally, and especially to the affairs of this country. That wse,se
argument used against concession at the time of the Asaesican
war, and Mr. Burke disposed of it in a few words, v...nich were
very applicable to their present position. Mr. Butte said, whe2
he was pressed with the argument that to ceemply with the eon.
cessions of America would only whet their appetite for move'.
he replied--" It is a great mie".ike to imagine that mankind
follow out in Practigt their speculative principles. either in
government or freedom, as far as their arguments or their
language 'fight lead them. We, Englishmen, stop short of
the extent of the principles by which we support parts cf
the Constitution, or even of the whole." These were the
words of a man who acted adequately on his material interest*
and not his metaphysical principles-4 Hear, hear.) He rile,.
fessed that his belief was that these words were applicable, toast
11 communities on earth, but esertiauy To
periods, and to a
England, be:. seeth- ,ause it was impossible not tothe _ yitem
of law and of government consisted iryt co;eofnation of oppo.
site courses, which shaped and milted each other, and
scarcely one of which was carrieet
out
to its extreme length.
while all subsisted tega..-
- .aer in harmony, producius
the happiness hind, welfare of the people. Who that
recollected the Struggle attendant on the Reform Bi.l,
• and the arguments regarding popular rights which
were then brought forward, but roust be surpriPed
to see how the apparent consequences to be drawn

from these arguments, had been checked by the good sense
and the good understanding of the people. He believed that
scarcely any person on either side of the House could have
anticipated before and during that great constitutional
struggle, how rapidly the principles advanced during that time
were checked in their action by the reflection of the sober-
minded people of England. He did not bring this forward as
a matter of controversy ; he took it for granted, that to a great
extent they were all agreed upon it as a matter of fact ; and,
at any rate, it was good for his purpose to this extent, that
it must not be argued as if everything apparently involved in
this measure must of necessity be carried into effect. Granted
that this was an important measure—granted that it was a great
Loon—that it might not have the effect of allaying agitation—
still he believed that, upon the whole, the measure was called
for by justice—that it was required by the state of the country;
and that he felt that there was no principle on which he
could take his stand in resisting it. He hoped, therefore, that
this measure of his Right lion. Friend, notwithstanding the
great sacrifice of feeling and of prepossessions which it un-
doubtedly called upon the people of England to make, would
pass into a law, and would receive, if not the sanction, at least
the acquiescence, of the country—that they would recollect the
feelings of ethers as well as their own—that they would abate
somewhat of their claims in deference to the law which bound
the people of the country together, and that they would sacri-
fice what was agreeable to themselves in the hope of benefiting
the country. lie had no occasion to detain the House longer.
While he regretted that he had been obhged to occupy their at-
tenion so long, he was deeply grateful to them for the indulgence
which they had extended to him. Ile would not mix up with this
question any matter relating to himself personally as an indi-
vidual. It would be a bad compliment to the House if he were
to mix up with a debate on interests so important matters so
comparatively trivial as those which related to himself. He
would rather wish that his present position might induce the
belief that he had formed an honest and impartial conclusion
with regard to this measure, unbiassed by the prejudices of
position. He believed their best vindication would be to leave
behind them words and acts which would convince posterity
that they of the present day and generation had laboured, with
fallible judgments but with honest intentions, to consult the
best interests of those whose social welfare was committed to
their charge.—( The Right Hon. Gentleman sat down amidst
loud cheers. )
The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY rose with Mr.
; there were loud cries for the latter, but he gave
way, and the Noble Earl proceeded to congratulate the Right
Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), after the speech of the Right
Hun. Gentleman who had just sat down, at now having the
support of every man who was worthy of the name of a states-
man.—( Hear, hear.) The lion. Gentleman the Member for
Dublin had alluded to the want of Catholic petitions for this
measure. The Hon. Gentleman had made a long speech, cha-
racterised by amenity of manner, and by language of which no
one could have any right to complain ; but he wished to tell
the Hon. Gentleman that what affected the Catholics of Ire-
land affected also the Catholics of En;land—(Cheers)—that
the Catholics of England rejoiced in any good that was offered
to Ireland, and that they viewed with delight and gratitude the
boon which was about to be bestowed on the Catholics cf Ire-
tend by the Right lion. Baronet. He must say also that the
Hon. Member's speech was full of exploded charges against
the Catholics. and of no doubt unintentional misrepresenta-
tions against Catholic doctrines and principles ; but the real
point of the speech wise to be found in the last sentence,
wherein he declared that he opposed the grant, because he was
opposed to the Catholic religion, and that was the real reason
of the violence, and of the "No Popery" cry. The sole
reason was this they said, " You are wrong and we are
right."—( A laugh.) They denied, indeed, any desire to
persecute the Catholics, but they were endowed with no
friendly feeling towards them. They were influenced by a
spirit which would have qualified them to become one of the
knights of King Arthur's round-table a spirit and a frame
of mind which, a few centuries ago, would have made the
Hon. Member for Kent turn him, and some other person turn
the survivor, and that without any great lose to the country.—
(Laughter. ) But, to go beck as far as eighteen centuries, sup-
pose the Hon. Member for Kent had been born an Israelite,
and brought up an honest and conscientious Israelite, would
he not, with the same frame of mind and disposition, have de-
sired to impeach the Roman Governor, Pontius Pilate, as the
Hon. Member for Knaresborough now wished to impeach the
Right Holionrable Baronet?—( Laughter. ) He did not wish
to pick out the Hon. Member for Kent invidiously, but that
Hon. Gentleman had attacked him, and charged him with
being ao idoiator, to the great amusement of his Right Hon.
Friend the Member for Dungarvan, who said he heard him
with a feeling akin to love.—( Hear, and laughter. ) The Hon.
Friend of the Member for Kent, the Member for Oxford too,
displayed a sacred spirit, which seemed to qualify him to be
high priest of the Jews.—( Renewed laughter. ) He was
no latitudinarian. He was a Catholic in communion

with the Church of Rome by conviction, by examination,
confirmed by the-le Scriptures which the Catholic were
accused of not being permitted to read.—(Cries of " Hear,
hear.") But, holding that creed and profession, ha did most
atrenuously abhor and repudiate religious persecution in every
country, - and under every creed.—(Cheers.) Whether in
Great Britain, or in Spain, or in Naples, or in Russia :he fully
abhorred and disliked it. —( Hear, hear.) He should not have
done his duty if, before he sat down, he did not pay a tribute,
thcugh a most inadequate and humble one, but certainly a
most unqualified one, of admiration, at the position in which
the Right Hon. Baronet had placed himself in bringing for-
ward this measure, opposed as he was by a great minority of
ins usual supporters. Calm and intrepid, the Right Hon.
Baronet bore up against the stream, firm in his dctermmation,
and supported by every true statesman in the United Kingdom ;
and he trusted that he would not merely triumph in this Bill,
but succeed in promoting the pacification of the empire.
Jlr D'l SR AELI and Mr. SHAW again rose together, and
the calls, as before, were loud and general for Mr. Disraeli,
and Mr. Shaw resumed his seat. Sir, said the Hon. Gentle-
man, I should not have intruded for a moment between you
and the Noble Load just now, had I had the slightest idea that
he intended to have caught your eye ; but the amendment
having been withdrawn, I had an idea, and that supposition is
sery general on this side of the House, that we should not
have been honouredlwith any declaration of opinion from
any gentleman on the other aide of the House. But lam
extremely glad that the Noble Lord has had an opportunity
of expressing his opinion on the subject. I trust he does
not for a moment imagine that I rise to say anything °fen-
dive to his creed, which I respect, or anything offensive to
himself and his co-religionists, with whom, in many respects,
1 sympathise.—( Hear, hear. ) I come now to the speech of
the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Newark. My
first impression, when I listened to that extremely able ha-
rangue, was the question why the Right Hon. Gentleman had
passed the gangway to deliver it.—( Hear, and a laugh.) It
seemed to be worthy of the Treasury bench, of that Treasury
bench which that evening he criticised. It seemed to me that
while the Right Hon. Gentleman informed us that though he
supported the present Bill, it was not for the reasons which
were adduced by his late right hon. chief. Nevertheless, had
he been in his positio r and had he introduced the Bill him-
self, he might have brought forward, perhaps, unanswerable
arguments ; and deeply sensible of what he styled the circum-
stances of the case, he might, perhaps, hare arrested the flow
f those petitions which he confesses has astounded him, but
which next week he informs us will astonish us still more.—
( A laugh.) But if I asked myself for a moment what was the
necessity for the Right Hon. Gentleman passing the gangway
to deliver that speech, ought I not rather to have asked my-
self the question, what was the necessity for the Right Hon.
gentleman to cross the House to deliver that speech ? If those
are the opinions the Right Hon. Gentleman entertains, how
can he, so subtle a casuist as ha may be, reconcile the course
which he now pursues to that which he pursued when in op-
position ? Because, after all, what is the result of the very
adroit argumentation and elaborate exposition of the Right
klon. Gentleman ? It is this, that the principle upon which
the State has hitherto been connected with the ecclesiastical

affairs of this country is worn eut.—( Hear, hear.) We must ,
seek a new principle, says the Right Hon. Gentleman, and the
Government which I have left because I support it—(Laugh-
ter)—that Government has discovered a new principle.-
1( Hear, hear.) But where is the new principle? He tells us
that it is not now definitely
.and distinctly made out. He ac-
knowledges that the exposition of it is feeble, and, perchance,
vague.—(A laugh.) It is not now complete ; we must look
to futurity. But if this is the case, have there been no prior
attempts to adumbrate this new system, and have no public men
;,n this House raised their voices to support this principle and
advocate this new settlement. Have they not been, in fact the
teundatioa of measures brought forward by Governments which
no lorger exist? And was not an opposition to those measures,
/aowever i.nperfect, or however partially advocated, the founda-
tion, not. only of the late Opposition, but of the Conservative
theory ?—( Hear.) I am perfectly ready to agree with the Right
Hon. Gentleman that the relation which exists between the
Church and State in this country is an extremely unsatisfactory
one. I have had some opport unities for observation on this head.
I have been a Member of this House now eight or nine ses-
sions, during a very tem-reatuous period, the principal part
of which was expended in discussions arising out of that con-
troverted principle. I have read the Right Hon. Gentleman's
•book.—( Laughter. ) But the Right Hon. Gentleman, in his
argument, has made one great assumption. He says—You
have endowed the English Church ; you have endowed the
Anglican Church. Cau you, in fact, refuse to endow the
-Roman Church ?—( Hear.) But have we, in fact, endowed
the Anglican Church ?—(Hear.) That is the question. We
know that there has been an allianoe between the Church and
.the State ; and the very term " alliance" shows that they met
on equal term!, and made an equal compact. But the Right
lion. Gentleman, with all his study of historical lore, and with
that trained casuistry, which exceeds any historical knowledge,
cannot place his finger on any page in history which shows
that the State endowed the Church.—( Hear, bear.) You may
regret it. The ecclesiastical power in this country has a large
estate. You may s'y that it is predominant, and reason
against the principle, but that it is a fact none can deny. We
deal with it as we deal with the estates of the aristocracy.
Parties may be divided upon that question of the landed in-
heritance of the country. But you cannot deny the fact.
.As practical men we deal with great facts in such a way
as to secure the greatest possible benefits. Bat when we
come to speak of religion a new question arises ; and the
whole basis of—l will not say the argument—but of the
political expediency of the Right Hon. Gentleman, then en-
tirely fails him. 1 should like to know what principle you will
Say down for the step you are invited to take. I know the
ittg, ht Hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill, and I must
make the same apology as the Right Hon. Gentle
Gentleman the late
President of the Board of Trade, for referring to his speech,
told us that upon this subject there
p were three curses open to
us. I never heard :the Right Ho Gentleman bring forward
a measure without making the
Glaemnetleconcession.—( Laughter.)
I never knew the Right Hon. Gentleman bring forward, not
what I call a great measure, but a measurema which
. assumes to
settle a great controversy, in which there is a dtfierence, with-
out saying that three courses were not open
en to us.
is right.
us. In a
certain sense, and looking to his own position,
—( Laughter.) There is the course the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman has left.—(" Hear, hear," and laughter.) There is
the course that the Right Hon. Gentleman is following;ete and
there is usually the course which the Right Hon.nm
' ought to pursue.—(Great laughter.) Perhaps, Sir, I oughtan
to say that there is a fourth course, because it is possible for the
flouse of Commons to adopt one of those courses indicated by
the Right Hon. Gentleman, and then having voted for it to rescind
• it.—( Laughter.) '1 hat is the fourth course, and in future I
trust the Right lion. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel) will not forget
it.—(" Hear," and laughter.) The Right Hon. Gentleman tells
us he always lo;:ks back to precedents; he comes with a great
measure, and he always has a small precedent. He traces the
stem-engine always back to the tee-kettle.—( Roars of
eaughter). His precedents are generally tea-kettle precedents.
—'Renewed laughter). He comes here boasting 0 the
- princilile of the measure to be submitted to our consideration.
The Right gm Gentleman has always Mr. Percival, or some
old hook front a dusty corner, to bring down and throw upon
the table, saying, " You have admitted the principle. Confine
yourselves to the details, Don't trouble yourselves about the
first and second reading, but reserve all your energies for the
' Committtee, because the principle is admitted." Now I deny
that, even, in the limited sense the Right• Hun, Gentleman
save, it is admitted. In the first place that was a temporary
vote, and this is not ; but, in fact, it is a permanent one. But
' i will not make that the ground of opposition to the Right
Illon CLentleman. I will go to the arguments of the Right
Oiliftits. sta ihtslskte President of the Board of Trade ; I
• ' "slaed--tliat_tuadir present circumstances he seems in
. _ .
. i ' ' - t anCelMapletely to have supplanted principles. I
- ;mil tag, g)gh,t Han. Gentleman as the last paladin of
I- -- -4.%•;• - • ---e fintry of abstraction • and, when a quiff,
'74.litte tgi e - 'elementary'
o,lo7,loledegittelc.tip.elLed the
etsistitutiortal, settlement i..
71 tecieslastteal arrangement, I
fifOr tialieVed lief it'eoukt be the .g..4Eht Hon. Oentle„man, wth°
mad, some down Ind:-4;ive the ilousi zuo Man change
Icitt
, o "citutamstanfes to settle this great account.—(Laughter and
--, nc,

cheers.) Have circumstances which aught to settle every
thing—have circumstances not changed since the time
of Mr. Percival? How astonished must Mr. Percival's ghost
be—if he has a ghost.—(Great laughter.) Yet were Mr. Pitt,
or Fox, or even Burke, whom the Right Hon. Gentleman has
quoted to-night, brought in to settle this question,
we might feel the controlling influence of the great apparition.
But Mr. Percival to be brought in to settle it !—(" Hear,
hear," and a laugh.) Mr. Percival seems, in a spirit as petty
as his nature, to have agreed to a miserable vote about this
accidental college at Maynooth. What, let nee ask you, was
the political and religious situation of affairs by virtue of which
Mr. Percival becarae Prime Minister at the time of which I
am speaking? You had really then what you pretend you now
have—a Constitution in Church and State. You had that
Constitution, and Members of Parliament being then neces-
sarily in communion with the Church, were, by virtue of this
junction of Church and e'tate, in fact members of a lay synod.
What, again, was the situation of the other kingdoms of the
empire? You had a Church in Scotland without any Dis-
senters, the only persons there not belonging to it being the
relicts of the old Episcopalian establishment. What, also, was
the ease with respect to Ireland ? There was your Constitu-
tion in Church and State not only founded in principle, but
most rigidly adhered to. What do we now see? You have no
longer in this country your boasted union of Church and State.
You may proclaim them still—you may make speeches to prove
that the union is as strong as ever—you may toast them at
your public dinners, but I tell you that the Constitu-
tion in Church and State no longer exists.—(Hear, hear.)
What is the broad and undeniable fact with respect to
this proclaimed union ? Why, even within my own per-
sonal experience I detect its hollowness ; and to test its
non-existence, I am politically connected with a district which
is threatened with very severe suffering in consequence of this
supposed Constitution in Church and State ; the inhabitants
of that district are about to endure one of the greatest Llows
that could be indicted upon them, and this solely because it has
pleased a Conservative Government to destroy the ancient epis-
copate wader which they have so long been governed.—( Hear,
and cheers.) What is now the position of the Church of Scot-
land—a church which the late Earl of Liverpool held up as a
model, and as the perfection of a religious community, because,
I suppose, it gave him no trouble ?—( A laugh.) What, I
repeat, is the present situation of the Church of Scotland'.' It
is rent in twain. Besides the Kirk, there is now the Free
Kirk. Well, will you endow the Free Kirk ? Will you apply
this principle of endowment to sectarians and schismatics of
every class? Where will you stop ? Why should you stop ?
And this consideration brings me to the question immediately
before the House. You find your Erastian system crumbling
from under your feet. Will you adopt a pantheistic principle?
I have unfaltering confidence in the stability of our Church ;
but I think that the real source of the injury which
threatens it is its connexion with the State, which places it
under the control of a House of Commons that is not neces-
sarily of its communion. Leave the Church to herself, she
will shrink from no contest, however severe. I believe in
Ireland itself, if the question be, will you sever the Church
from the State, or will you endow the Roman Catholic
Church ?—for my own part, I believe the Protestants of Ireland
would say, " Sever the connexion between the Church and the
State, and don't endow the Roman Catholics."—( Hear, hear.)
But then we come to this other consideration—are we to be
bound to recognise a pantheistic principle ? Because, judging
from all that has passed, I can only come to the conclusion,
that any body of sectarians that can prove a cer-
tain population to Downing-street will be considered to have a
claim for an endowment. For my own part, I confess I have
no great confidence in the cure of souls in that quarter.
( Hear, hear.) I observe in Downing-street a disposition to
assail our old and deeply rooted habits. From that quarter has
proceeded the assault on the parochial constitution of the
kingdom. Will they complete it by attending to our spiritual
necessities? For my part, I am totally opposed to such a pro-
ceeding.—( Hear, hear.) I can conceive nothing more op-
posed to, or more utterly at variance with, the feelings of this
country than a police surveillance, such as is contemplated
over the ceremonies and observances of the Church. I abso-
lutely deny that the Church of England is the creature of the
State. The alliance between them has been one formed and
maintained upon equal terms ; and if it be attempted, as ap-
pears to be the intention, to place all ecclesiaeticol affairs
under the control of Downing-street, and to subject them to
the same species of discipline that is enforced in Prussia over
the religious establishments there, I tell the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman that the people of this country will never endure
such a system. This alone is a sufficient ground with me
to oppose the Bill now before the House. I will not say that
this Bill has been introduced into this House in a sinister
and insidious manner, though I, in common with others,
have formed my conclusions upon that point ; but I will as-
sert, what I believe cannot be denied, that the measure has
taken the country by surprise. But 1 have other reasons
fur opposing this measure.—(Hear, hear.) I oppose this
Bill on account of the manner in which it has been introduced,
and I oppose it also on account of the men by whom it has
been brought forward.— (Loud cheers.) I am perfectly ready
to meet those cheers, and I do so by declaring, that I do not
think—putting totally out of view the other objections which I
entertain—that the men who are now seated on the Treasury
bench are morally entitled to bring such a measure forward.
This measure, Sir, involves a principle against which the Right
Hon. Gentleman and most of his colleagues have all along most
signally struggled.—( Hear, hear.) "A hen I recal to mind all
the speeches, and all the motions, and all the votes which have
emanated from the present occupants of the Treasury bench on
this and analogous questions—when I remember their opposi-
tion to that system of education which they now seek to pro-
mote—when I recollect the procession of prelates going up to
the palace of the Sovereign to protest against analogous mea-
sures with those which those who incited this proceeding are
now urging forward—when I recal to mind all the the dis-
cussions which have taken place here on the subject of Irish
education—when the appropriation clause presents itself to my
momory—C Loud cheers)—l consider it would be worse than
useless to dwell at any length upon the circumstances which
induce me to adopt this opinion. And are we to be told,
that because those men who took the course to which I have
referred have crossed the floor of this House, and have aban-
doned with their former seats their former professions—are
we to ba told that these men's measures and actions are to
remain uncriticised and unopposed, because they tell us to
look to the merits of their measures, and to forget them-
selves and their former protestations ?—(Loud cheers.) Such
pretensions naturally lead to the question whether party, as
a political instrument, is or is not to continue to govern the
discussions of this House ?—( Hear, hear.) This question
touches the ohole policy of the Ministry. Let us, therefore,
grapple with it, and decide what our future course shall be in
this respect. Let us endeavour to put an end to the miscon-
ception and subterfuge which now surround us. I am perfectly
contented to place the question upon this footing. low, Sir,
it is very easy to complain of party Government, and there may
be persons capable of forming an opinion on this subject who
may entertain a deep objection to that Government, and know
to what that objection leads.—( Hear, hear.) But there are
others who shrug their shoulders, and talk in a slipshod style
on this head, who, perhaps, are not exactly aware of what that
objection leads to. These persons should understand, that if
they object to party Government they do, in fact, object to no-
thing more nor less than Parliamentary Gevernment.—(Loud
cheers.) A popular assembly without parties-500 isolated
individuals—cannot stand five years against a Minister with an
organised Government without becoming a servile senate.—
( Loud cheers.) The objectors to party Government may
have a good case, on the merits of which I give no opinion.
They may say, " Here are we the Parliament of England;
we have had the virtual sovereignty of this country for a
century and a half ; we have plunged the country in debt,
and we can't pay it ; we have done more than patri-
cian Rome in its most rapacious hour. We have mort-
gaged industry to protect property ; we have passed laws
on the currency which have affected property more than all the
tampering of the coinage by all the sovereigns that have ever
existed; we have violently assailed, and now still more enor-
mously menace, the parochial constitution of the country, arid,
having differed on every other subject, we have at length
agreed on one point, that with relation to the civilization, the
wealth, and luxury that surround them, the people of England
are the hardest worked and the worst fed, the most miserable
and degraded population in the world.—(Loud cheers.) This
is the case of those who are opposed to party Government.
Well, let theta carry out their principle ; let them vote an ad-
dress to the Crown, go up to Buckingham Palace, fall on their
knees before our Sovereign Lady, and restore to her the pre-
rogatives which they have so long usurped and so injuriou.ly
used.—( Loud cheers and laughter.) But for the Right Hon.
Gentleman, even a pedant in favour of Parliamentary power,
who, First Minister of the Crown, declares he is ready to go to
war to-morrow with the Lord Chief Justice of England in be-
half of your privileges—who is jealous of the slightest inter-
ference with your business or your duties, even if you cannot
transact or perform them—who enjoins the youth of England
not to make brilliant speeches, but to work on railway com-
mittees—(Laughter)—for him to set up for one who would be
independent of Parliament and party, is indeed astonishing.—
( Cheers.) 'The Noble Lord opposite, the hereditary leader of
the Whig party, who founded Parliamentary Government in
this country, will, I am sure, net withhold his concurrence with
the principles I have laid down. That Noble Lord, the re-
presentative of Mr. Fox, will not gainsay the motto of that
great leader—" Men, and not measures." And how has the
opposite system answered? You have permitted men to gain
power and enter place, aad then carry measures exactly the
reverse to those which they professed in opposition, and they
carry these measures by the very means and machinery by
which they conducted the opposition, and by which theygained
power.—(Cheers.) And you are reconciled to this pro-
cedure by being persuaded that by carrying measures which
you disapprove of, and they pretend to disrelish, they are
making what they call " the best bargain" for you. I
say that the Parliamentary course, under the usual cif,•
cutostances, is fur this House to have the advantage
of a Government formed on distinct principles, and of
its consequence, a constitutional Opposition ; and yet here is a
Minister who now habitually brings forward as his own mea-
sures those very schemes and proposals to which, when in op-
position, he always avowed himself a bitter and determined op-
penent.—(Loud cheers.) He brings in Canada Bills, he brings
in Maynooth Bills, he uses expressions and excites feelings still
more objectionable than the measures; but, let me ask the
admirers of the best bargain system, how they think the Right
Hon. Gentleman would have acted bad they been introduced
by the Noble Lord opposite ?—(Loud and prolonged cheers.)
Why, then those Bills would have been at least checked by the
Opposition, by the constitutional Opposition; the questions
would have been criticised, they would have been opposed ; in
the case of the College of Maynooth, I grant it may have been
factiously opposed ; but this opposition is a necessary conse-
quence of a Parliamentary Government. In what situation
are we placed now ?—( Hear.) Up come all these petitions ;
in them we hear the loud murmurs of the people, because
there is no exponent of the national opinion in this House,
while we have a Government which came into power by an
organisation prepared to oppose such measures now engaged
in carrying them.—( Loud cheers.) How can we accuse
the Opposition? I may on constitutional grounds say, the
Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) ought to oppose the
measure, though he approves it, because it is thus brought
forward; the people find that the men who now occupy
the high places of the Government support measures
they were brought into power politically and personally- to op-
pose ; it is for those who act on another set of principles to op-
pose the Government ; but we have not a Government formed
on distinctive principles, consequently we have no constitu-
thional Opposition to keep the Government in check. Now, I
ope it will not be
and
eirsa id,beccoamupselelte rhaveiaetin and affinity madec theseeitytot the
o nets are
in
motion before the House, that I am " bandying personalities."
Certainly we live in strange Parliamentarytimepsossrtihoennas
person in so eminent a the
First
cism on a
of the Crown is to be stopped by his declaring it personality,
when it is but fairHoebaere,ryhateiaorn.)o_nwtth.eosceha,raarceteer is
r and conduct of
inbferenc
a public man—
( with respect to whom we have a right to draw the openin to uess,
we think legitimate ; and if they are not just they
travened in free discussion. I do not know whet tyheellOcuse
on.
thinks of this system of putting down Parliamentry discussion;
it is not a very new experiment ; it has been tried in—l
will
not say another House, for that must not be referred to—but
has been tried in what is called " another place."—(Great
laughter.) 130 not know whether the position occupied by
" another place" in the public estimation and the
public eye is one of which the Members of the
House of Commons are particularly ambitious.—(Cheers and
laughter.) J remember when we used to toast
" another place " with three times three and nine
tiggee pipe—(Laughtey),--'f another place" was once
cr
these (
nowLr
2ayu,Huh
t4a.01._;, ; e"uritd toast 3,Lt pavil,liwhere i. to. kuCeoe7e.efarZ,aatinivoe;tteidinnpnglaet
(Great cheering.) It is not Rau.,_ . • entseigried
tionary spirit of the 19th century, which has .
" another place" to its illustrious insignificance—(Cheers and

laughter)—it is Conservatism and a Conservative dictator.—
(Cheers.) Are you prepared to meet the same fate? Every i
time a Member expresses any opinions not absolutely agreeable
to the Minister of the day, is he to be stopped by a charge of
a bandying personalities ?" Whenever the young teen of Eng-
land allude to any great principles of political life or Parlia-
mentary conduct, are they to be recommended to go to a railway
committee?—(Cheers and laughter.) I have no doubt it
would be very agreeable if this House wcs in the same condi-
tion, especially with regard to this Bill, as " another place."
I know that the Members of this House are different, that the
characters of the individuals who would control us are different;
but the process with both bodies, although it varies, i 3 in re-
sult the same. It may break the spirit in " another place,"
and it may lower the tone in this ; " another place" may be
drilled into a guard-room, and the House of Commons may
be degraded into a vestry.—(Cheers and laughter.) But the
consequence is exactly similar, and that consequence will be,
that you will have Bills like this Maynooth Bill, and that still
more important measure which, after the admission of
the Right lion. Member for Newark, may be looked on as
a fact, if not accomplished, yet ascertained, introduced,
and carried through this House, and of course through
" another place ;" and you may have the floor of this House
covered with petitions, and the lobby of " another place"
crowded with the constituents who have left us in despair;
but, whatever may be the degree of public fueling, whatever
may be the depth of the national sentiment, if you choose
to support a Government that announces no distinctive prin-
ciples, which is in turn supported by an Opposition that does
not oppose, lam certain there is no spirit and no nation that
ran resist a " cross" so deeply laid and so deliberately ac-
complished.—(Loud cheers.) This Maynooth Bill is intro-
duced instead of the Irish Registration Bill—(Cheers)—the
necessity for which was as apparent when the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman was in opposition as it is now ; the necessity for which
was doubly apparent when the Right Hon. Gentleman assumed
the reins of office, and equally apparent as it is now; but
which is brought in after a four years' experiment of lowering
your tone, and working that, constitutionally, by means of a
Whig opposition.—(Cheers.) We have had this Bill brought
in after a four years' experiment ; and during those four
years what has the Conservative party endured? What has
it experienced? What is the treatment it has been obliged
to submit te, till the thing was se ripe that even your mur-
murs are not noticed? This 831 brings affairs to a crisis ;
the question is not to be decided on its merits ; it is to be
decided on the fact—who are the men who bring it forward ?
If you are to have a popular Government, if you are to
have a Parliamentary Administration, the conditions an-
tecedent are, that you should have a Government which
declares the principles upon which its policy is founded, and
then you can have on them the wholesome check of a constitu-
tional opposition. What have we got instead ? Something
has risen up in this country as fatal in the political world as it
has been in the landed world of Ireland—we hare a great Par-
liamentary middleman.—(lmmense cheering.) It is well
known what a middleman is—(Cheers and laughter)—He is a
man who bamboozles one party, and plunders the other—(A
laugh)—till, having obtained a position to which he is not en-
titled, he cries out, " Let us have no party questions, but
fixity of tenure."—( Laughter and cheers.) I want to have a
commission issued to inquire into the tenure by which Down-
ing-street is held.—(Loud cheers.) I want to know whether
the conditions of entry have been complied with, and whether
there are not some covenants in the lease which are already for-
feited?—(Cheers and laughter.) I hope I shall not he an-
swered by Hansard.—(Cheers. ) I am not surprised the Right
Hon. Gentleman should he so fond of recurring to that great
authority ; he has great advantages; he can look over a reccrd
of thirty, and more than thirty years of an eminent career.
But that is not the lot of every one, and I may say, as a general
rule, I am rather surprised (especially when the Maynooth
question is concerned), that experienced statesmen should
like to recur to that eminent publication.—( Hear, hear.)
What, after all, does one see on looking over a quarter of a
century or more even of one's own speeches in Hansard',
What dreary pages of interminable talk, what predic-
tions falsified, what pledges broken, what calculations
that have gone wrong, what budgets that have blown up
And all this, too, not relieved by a single original thought, a
single generous impulse, or a single happy expression ! Why
Hansard, instead of being the Delphi of Downing-street, is
but the Dunciad of politics.—(Cheers and laughter.) But I
want something more than quotations from Hansard to account
for how parties have been managed in this House; it is so
matter of fact and yet so fallacious, taking in every body, though
every body knows he is deceived ; so mechanical, and yet so
alachiavelian, that I can hardly say what it is, except a hum-
drum hocus pocus, in which the order of the day is read to
take in a nation.—(Cheers and laughter.) Now, the system
is to be brought to a test to-night. Will the House support
the Government in a measure which, according to the highest
authority,—one who has quitted the Cabinet for some reason
that has not been given, and who, probably, may join it again
under circumstances equally obscure—(Cheers),—is, in fact,
an endowment for the Roman Catholic priesthood of Ireland ?
If any vote were at stake in which the social and political
equality of the Roman Catholic population was concerned, I
would go as far as any man in the House, and perhaps further
than many. But, Sir, no one pretends that this is now the ques-
tion. The grounds on which I oppose this motion are not those
of hostility to their claims, but grounds which they themselves,
after the clamour of the moment, must feel are legitimate ones.
I cannot admit the plea ad rni.eericordiam, founded on
the state of Maynooth. Surely men of high spirit and
bearing- cannot for a moment bring themselves to suppose
that we shall be induced to vote for the measure on this plea ;
it would be an insult to them to suppose so. I know there are
Roman Catholic colleges, well organised and well ordered, that
are not in the condition of Maynooth ; there are sectarian
colleges in England with larger revenues even than those now
proposed to be given by the Government in support of Roman
Catholic principles. What sustains them? The sympathy of
their co-religionists.---(Hear, hear.) I cannot believe, there.
fore, that those gentlemen will, upon reflection, be anxious
that this Bill should pass. Ido not think it a measure either
flattering to their pride or solacing to their feelings ; I do not
think it either a great or a liberal measure. The Highs Hon.
Gentleman is a supreme master of Parliamentary tactics, and
when he found he was not receiving from the seats behind him
the once abundant chorus of applause to which he was accus-
tomed, be went forward to the red box, and saying, " I know
this is a great grant to Maynooth," obtained the assent of
several Hon. Gentlemen of the Opposition to the assertion.
But if the Right Hon. Gentleman's principle is correct, I
think it is not a great grant ; I think it is a mean, a meagre,
and a miserable grant. If the Roman Catholic priesthood are
to be educated by the State, it must be something greater
than the difference between 23/. and 281., something higher
than the difference between three in a bed or two.—(Hear.
hear.) That is not the way, under any circumstances, in
which I would approach a reverend priesthood. I cannot
believe, therefore, that the Roman Catholic gentlemen, on
reflection—and I hope they will have time for reflection--
will vote for this measure, when they consider what it is.
Who are they who introduce it ? They are the same indi-
viduals whose black shade fell on the sunshine of your hopes
for more than half a century—they are those who arrested
the progress arid fruition of those hopes for more than five-and-
twenty years. Will not these considerations affect you ?
What if it be a boon ? I deny that it is one—but if it were
such a boon as it is said to be, nould you accept it from hands
polluted ?—( Hear, hear.) It is not from him you ought to
accept it—nct from him who, urged on, as he reluctantly
admitted, by a fatal State necessity, accompanied the con-
cesssion of your legitimate political claims by the niggardly
avowal that he was obliged to concede them.—( Hear, hear. )
As to the Whigs, I am almost in despair of appealing to their
hereditary duties, their constitutional convictions, or their
historical position ; but I should have thought that the Noble
Lord epposite was almost weary of being dragged at the
triumphal car of a conqueror who did not conquer him in fair
fight. I think the Noble Lord might have found some inspira-
tion in the writings of that great man whom he has so often
quoted, and whose fame he so attempts to emulate. I should
have thought that in the position of the Noble Lord—and he
has a thoughtful mind and a noble spirit—Mr. Fox would have
taken that course, which I think the Noble Lord, touched
by his high position, and the responsibility of that position, will
still take. His party may have fallen, but it still is one con-
nected with the history of this country. Other parties have
also fallen ; they have been re-constructed, and they have been
destroyed. The Noble Lord is not in so fallen a position as that
in which the Right Hon. Gentleman was in 1831. But let the
Noble Lord beware of this,—let him beware of rising from
that degraded position again by the same system of tactics.
—( Hear.) They may bring some short-lived success, hut
upon conditions which I believe the gallant spirit of the Noble
Lord would disdain, —( Hear, hear.) But, Sir, if with re-
regard to this measure respecting Maynoeth I do not despair
of the aid of the Roman Catholic gentry of Ireland, or of the
Whigs of England, or of those who oppose the measure on ex-
clusive Protestant principles, I think I may the more certainly
depend on the support of those who oppose this measure, be-
cause it seeks to pervert principles which it seeks hereafter
to distrust, because it seeks to lower the tone of this country
and to change the national character of England.--( Hear,
hear.) But, whatever may be the various motives and im-
pulses which animate these different sections of opinion, there
is at least one common ground for co-operation—there is one
animating principle which is likely to inspire us all. Let us in
this House re-echo that which I believe to be the sovereign
sentiment of this country ; let us tell the people in high places
that cunning is not caution, and that habitual perfidy is not
high policy of state. On that ground we may all join. Let
us bring back to this House that which it has for so long a time
past been without—the legitimate influence and salutary check
of a constitutional Opposition.— (Cheers.) That is what the
country requires, what the country looks for. Let us do it at
once in the only way in which it can be done, by dethroning
this dynasty of deception, by putting an end to the into-
lerable yoke of official despotism arid Parliamentary imposture.
Mr. ROEBUCK said, he approached this question w ith con-
siderable apprehension as to whether he would he able ade-
quately to explain the opinions he held upon it and the reasons
for his vote. He felt this the more because it appeared to him
that this was a great national question, and that there was
danger from what they had heard to-night that all considers-
tiens of national welfare would be forgotten in petty private
pique, and personal feeling.— (Cheers.) He did not like on
a question like this to see feelings of a merely personal nature
introduced to disturb those other ccnsiderstions which must of
necessity in that House, and at that time, excite great anxiety
in the minds of all men who felt that they had a great duty to
perform to the people, and who did not forget the interests of
the people in cons.derations concerning themselves.—( Hear,
hear.) And here he would for the moment make one passing
remark of a critical character. He could not congratulate the
Hen. .Timber for Shrewabury on the effect of the matter of
his speech ; it certainly had not been characterised by any of
that remarkable talent which was necessary to bear away the
open malice which it evinced.—( Hear, hear.) That speech
was certainly poor in its performance, however malicious in
its motives.—( Hear, hear.) It was said to be something
to be praised by one who was himself worthy of praise; so
it was hard to be accused of inconsistency by one who was him-
self open to the same charge. Even if he (Mr. Roebuck)
were unwilling to use towards the Hon. Member those hard
words which seemed to stand in the place of wit on this occa-
sion, the argument, if argument it could be called, which
formel the sum and substance of the Hon. Gentleman's speech,
could be retorted on the Hon. Gentleman himself. What did
his charge amount to? Why, that the Right Hon. Baronet
had in former times held former opinions, and that with the
change of times he had changed his opinions. The Hon. Gen-
tleman himself was open to the some charge. What was the
sort of constitutional opposition to which the HOU. Member at
one time aspired ? Why, it was not only a constitutional op-
position, but a liberal one.—( Hear, hear. ) The great model
of his Parliamentary career was at one time the Hon. Member
for Montrose. Commencing lire with these aspirations, he was
shortly afterwards to be found in open opposition behind the
back of the Right Honourable Baronet. How came he there ?
That was a natural question. An equally natural one was,
why did he remain there ?—( Hear, hear.) If, indeed, his
brilliant merits have been forgotthn, and the Right Ho-
nourable Baronet has indeed thought of measures and not
of men—( Cheers and laughter)—then, indeed, we may
understand the position of the Hon. Member and his unfortu-
id,ea tei deepest
theegt miserable
aeend 3:pstltraryy.
nate state of mind—unfortunate, perhaps, only because he has
d
never had afforded to him the opportunity of " coming below
the gaegiaaeas_
s
and expectations (fgor,scenolhintssenfei
:troehsnl .ni
enno)
Rtgesdunßeedresuetpttsi
01,
question
htet
?heot asked,enb
regretted
respecting
theirheearr religious
ia excitedWhenous b
y theythbeliefe
a
had hid their turned w ere
notth a t thesethor
and from the. groat object of the debate
to these petty feelings
House would pardon him if he
. and he did hope the
endeavoured.to forget all con-
sideration of the immediate amusemente
rived from malice in the guiseof
itiHwhich mightl fbte.tde-t
once for the more serious subjects involvedeelnr)—theand left a
.--- It :Jai queptiori which pa 4 3t be regardedgue as. of

Ilvai.,