they can have none at all, or none that is not dangerous. I don't think any time should be lost; too much time has been lost already, both with regard to their education and to Irish education in general." when he had hardly been more than ostentatus terris, and when the love borne towards him was proved by the bitterness of a nation's regret and disappointment. This unhappy change brought to a severe test the principle on which Maynooth rested. It had been proposed by Lord Fitzwilliam, with the good will and hearty concurrence of his colleagues and of the British Cabinet. It was received in Ire rously conceded here, and gratefully accepted in Ireland. This can hardly be expected unless the history of the foundation of Maynooth be remembered. The noble Duke has stated that this measure was originally supported in Ireland by I am unwilling to trouble your Lordships Lord Chancellor Clare, by the Beresfords, with many extracts from this most interby Lords Kilwarden and Avonmore. Greatesting correspondence; but there still are officers of State in Ireland, it is true, gave to call your particular attention. Your a few more to which I must be permitted an honourable support to the measure, and recommended it to Parliament. But some Lordships are well aware of the history of of these names are not qualified to increase that period-of the appointment of Lord its popularity in one country, or add to its Fitzwilliam, of the liberal intentions with weight in the other. I do not wish this which he entered on the functions of Lord Lieutenant-of his most unfortunate recall measure to rest on the authority of any local politicians, however eminent their talents, and even assuming their support to have been independent and disinterested. It rests on the far higher authority of the greatest and wisest philosopher of his time, and on the authority of the most powerful statesman who ever influenced the counsels of a British Parliament. It is not to be considered as the Bill of Lord Chancellor Clare, however respectable his authority; it is not to be considered as the Bill of Chief Justice Yelverton, or Mr. Wolfe ;no-it is more truly to be regarded as the Bill of Edmund Burke, as the Bill of William Pitt; and as sanctioned by a name more powerful than both in the country for whose benefit it was intended-as the Bill of Henry Grattan. The importance attached to this measure by Burke, and the share he took in its foundation, are no longer matters of doubt or speculation. From the published correspondence of Mr. Burke-for which the world are greatly indebted to two distinguished friends of Ireland, the Earl Fitzwilliam and Lieutenant General Sir Richard Bourke-it is clear that from September, 1794, to the autumn of 1795, this subject engrossed the attention of Burke, the eager anxiety of Grattan, and the best exertions of that excellent and pious man, Bishop Hussey, the first presi-statesdent of the College. In September, 1794, Mr. Grattan wrote to Mr. Burke land, as was Lord Fitzwilliam himself, with the most cordial and grateful feelings. But on the recall of the Lord Lieutenant, whilst many of his plans were rejected by his successor in office, the College of Maynooth, so far from being included in that number, was vigorously supported and carried into effect under Lord Camden by his Secretary, Mr. Pelham. Bishop Hussey writes to Mr. Burke, February 26, 1795— * "The disastrous news, my dear Sir, of Earl Fitzwilliam's recall is come; and Ireland is now on the brink of a civil war. I wrote half a dozen lines this day to the Duke of Portland confining myself to two questions:-first, whether the Education Bill is to be effected? secondly, whether it is his wish that I should remain for the purpose?" On the 10th March, the same prelate communicates the results of this inquiry. He "I received a letter two days ago from the Duke of Portland desiring me to remain for the establishment of a Catholic College; and promising to have a Bill passed for it in this Session of Parliament. Knowing the good effects such an intention would produce towards quieting the present irritated state of the public mind, I made every prudent use of his Grace's letter, and have succeeded." It was several months after the removal of Lord Fitzwilliam that Burke finally addressed Bishop Hussey on the subject of Maynooth, in a leter dated July, 1795. Mr. Burke's words were as follow: "I am in the highest degree interested in anything with which you are concerned, and of our various religious denominations. But the religion and the spiritual instructors of the great majority of the people of Ireland, dealing with the latter as enemies or as insincere friends. We are, for the first time, saying to the latter, "Not only do we now cast aside all jealousy and suspicion on account of your religious faith-not only do we abandon and disclaim any desire of subjecting you, as Roman Catholics, to civil disabilities or penal enactments, but we at last mark our respect and sympathy for the religion you profess-we are, at last, disposed to support and countenance it; not dealing with it, indeed, as a religion which we, as Protestants, prefer, but as the religion which is preferred by the great bulk of the people of Ireland." The question which you, my Lords, are called upon to decide by your votes this night, is not whether you adopt the College of Maynooth as a perfect system, nor yet, whether the opinions of the Roman Catholic Church are conformable with our own views of religious truth; but whether it is not wise to acknowledge the Catholic clergy, as the religious instructors of the Irish people, and as such, the instruments through which we are permitted to effect the greatest amount of good to Ireland, both moral and spiritual. I believe most sincerely that this is the case. But we are to be met, it seems, by a preliminary objection, which, if it be well founded, I must admit is conclusive against the Bill; but if it is well founded, it is equally fatal to our past, as to our present legislation. The Roman Catholic religion, we are told, is not only an erroneous one, but it contains most fatal and deadly errors of faith and doctrine. By this Bill we provide for its professors and its priests. We are thus disseminating as well as countenancing error. And this is charged against us as a national sin; and all the authors and supporters of this measure are stigmatized as men equally forgetful of our duty towards God and towards our country. Now, those who make use of such an argument, must be either ignorant or wilfully forgetful of the course pursued by England in all quarters of the world, not only at present, but in former times; not only under the auspices of the present Government, but under Cabinets of the most unquestioned orthodoxy, or else they must admit that we have been for years most unscrupulous offenders. As conclusive evidence on this subject, I beg leave to refer to Returns which I moved for, and which are now on your Lordships' Table. As these Returns have not yet been before the public for a sufficient time to familiarize the House with the important facts which they contain, and the truths they illustrate, I must take leave to notice some of their most important contents. I shall do this for the purpose of demonstrating how truly absurd and fallacious, how contrary to historical fact, is the assertion that Parliament, in passing this Bill, is adopting any novel or unjustifiable principle. I shall do this for the purpose of silencing those ignorant clamourers, who proclaim so loudly, that by providing for the instruction of Catholics in their religion, we are unprotestantizing Englandthat we are unchristianizing the Empire. I do this to prove that these noisy advocates of intolerance know nothing of the subjects which they presume to discuss, that they are utterly ignorant of the whole course of our legislation, and of our Government, foreign, domestic, and, more especially, colonial. I reason on the assumption of their ignorance, in preference to the adoption of the less flattering supposition of a willing, and therefore a culpable, misrepresentation. The Returns which are now before me exhibit the mode in which the Government and the Imperial as well as the Colonial Legislatures have dealt with questions relating to religion and to education. They illustrate the principle on which England, as an Empire, has acted in the promotion of religious instruction in our Colonies, in the endowment, not of one, but of many religions in our wide-spread dependencies. My Lords, I feel a national pride as a British subject in referring to these authentic documents. In foreign countries it has been so often asserted, that it is at length believed, that we consider our Colonies as forming only the basis of our political and commercial power, and as giving us the means of acquiring and accumulating wealth. These official Returns prove, on the contrary, that England is swayed and influenced by higher thoughts, and that she performs nobler duties. This Return proves that we have not been insensible to those more exalted functions of a Government, and of a mother State-the duty of providing for the moral and religious wants of our Colonial fellow subjects. These duties we endeavour to discharge, and God forbid we should ever undervalue or neglect them! But the principle which guides us in performing these functions is shown on the face of these Returns. Is it intolerant? Is it exclusive? Does it assume that as a, stances payments for Roman Catholic biState we possess a capacity for pronouncing shops also; thus making altogether a sum authoritatively upon what we consider reli- of 223,5491., of which 46,912. was paid gious truth; and that within that circle of re- by the British Treasury, and 176,6371. was ligious truth our active interposition should paid out of the Colonial funds. In addition be strictly confined? Does it exclude to this, 171,1621. was voted for schools the Roman Catholics and their religious in connexion with various denominations teachers from the bounty and support of of Christians. I am not called on to exthe State, on the supposition that they are plain or defend the proportions in which disseminators of error? No such thing. this public aid is allotted. I am dealing From the language used by those who are with the principle only; and this is not hostile to Maynooth, it might be supposed varied by the question of more or less, as that any encouragement given to the Roman exemplified in the appropriation of these Catholic religion by the State is a novel sums. What I engaged to prove, and what as well as an indefensible proceeding, and I have proved, is, that the endowment of that the present Government and those the Roman Catholic Church is not a prinwho support them are responsible for this ciple first adopted in the present day, first dangerous innovation. From the Paper sanctioned by the measure of the noble which is before me, it appears that the po- Duke (Wellington) or by the Colonial adpulation of the thirty-eight Colonial posses- ministration of my noble Friend (Lord sions of England amounts to 4,695,000, Stanley); but that it was recognised by his and that liberal sums are voted or appro- predecessors in office, many years back, and priated for the purposes of religious instruc- by Parliamentary votes given in what were tion and general education. Now, if the called good Protestant times. Nor were supreme power of a State possessed, or could these principles adopted or applied in secret, justly claim, a capacity for the discovery of and in the dark. Parliament, and the religious truth; if that truth is but one; Committees of Parliament, were not left in and if it therefore becomes our duty, in our ignorance of what was going on in all national and corporate capacity, to withhold quarters of the globe under our Governand discountenance the propagation of all ment. Attention was repeatedly drawn to opinions inconsistent with that single and these permanent endowments as well as to selected truth-there surely is no portion of the annual grants which were made or the Empire so well adapted for the appli- sanctioned; yet, I am not aware, during cation of this principle as are some of our more than a quarter of a century of ParColonies. In those newly formed commu- liamentary experience, that the intolerant nities we had, as it were, a tabula rasa, on objections now raised against the increased which it was competent to us, at our free vote for Maynooth have ever been urged will, to trace any inscription. In the Return against these Colonial grants. I scarcely to which I refer, so far from our adoption of know any denomination of Christian men any single and exclusive principle, there for whose benefit, at one time or another, are exhibited the most signal instances of some public aid does not appear to have been our preference of a principle more compre- given. In Canada, we support Roman Cahensive. In that Return is contained tholics, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and ample evidence that in our Colonies we other Dissenters. We have abandoned the support those several modifications of enactments of our earlier Statute Law, and Christianity which, appearing to pre- this in the present reign, for the purpose of vail the most in each particular place, including Roman Catholics in an appropriaare the most likely to meet the wants, and tion of ecclesiastical estates expressly into promote the spiritual well-being of the tended for other religious denominations. colonists and inhabitants. I find, that in This was done in 1840. In the Mauritius, the single year 1842, 163,144/. was voted there is a joint endowment for the Church by the Home and the Colonial Legislatures of England and that of Rome. In Newfor purposes connected with the Established foundland, we not only endow a Roman Church; that during the same period Catholic bishop, but we build a Roman 29,6921. has been voted for the Presbyte- Catholic cathedral. In Jamaica, grants for rian Church of Scotland in the Colonies; the Church, for Protestant Dissenters and for the Wesleyans and Protestant Dis- the Roman Catholics are eulogized by a senters 4,6341.; and for the Church of Rome late excellent Governor (Lord Metcalfe) as 26,0794, including not only a payment for "honourable to the Legislature, and atRoman Catholic priests, but in several in- tended with benefit to the community." In our Spanish, French, and Dutch Colo-, minions of the Crown in which the Church nies, the religious feelings and interests of of England has been more prosperous, where the various Churches are respected and are her doctrines have taken a firmer root, or provided for. But the case to which I have extended more rapidly, than in New should wish more especially to call your South Wales, under the influence of Sir Lordships' attention, is that of one of our Richard Bourke's most wise and liberal latest Colonies, where it cannot be sug- legislation? The inferences which are degested that we are acting in pursuance of ducible from this great and successful exany obligations either of compact or of periment would carry me much further Treaty; but where, if there ever was a case than would be justifiable on the present where we were free to act according to our occasion. I have raised a question, howown sense of duty, we were at perfect liberty ever, which I hope may claim some porto do so. I allude to the important and tion of your Lordships' attention hereafter. improving Colony of Australia, There, it I need not carry it further, for the purwill be seen that the most perfect system poses of my present argument. I scarcely of religious freedom, and I may add of re-anticipate that any noble Lord will feel ligous equality and justice, has been adopted. inclined to reject the precedents which I This is done effectually; but not by adopt- have cited, on the ground that they are exing that which is commonly called the vo-clusively drawn from our Colonial adminisluntary principle, and leaving all religions to tration. Beware, my Lords, of so danshift for themselves; a principle, if, indeed, a gerous, I might say, of so fatal an arguprinciple it can be called, to which I should ment. Are your Lordships disposed to say object as strongly as any one of your Lord- to the people of Ireland, We will not ships. On the contrary, the Legislature has assist in the education of your Irish priestacted on the very opposite principle, and hood, for this would be the endowment of has laid down as its fundamental doctrine errcr, and, therefore, would be unworthy of that it was as clearly the bounden duty of men who boast that they are the exclusive the Government to provide for the religious supporters of truth; but while we mainand moral interests of the people, as for tain this doctrine inviolably in Ireland, we their civil government, their military pro- entertain an utter disregard of its authority tection, and their material wants. The in every other part of the world? The Legislature did not realize this truth by religious feelings and interests of the French providing for one Church only-still less Canadians, of the Spaniards at Trinidad, of did they feel themselves justified in leav- the Dutch at the Cape, and in Demerara, ing all Churches unprovided for. They are taken into just account by Great Britain; wisely and charitably made provision for for them we sympathize; but towards Ireall. The Colonial Church Temporalities land and the Irish people we adopt and act Act of 1836, constitutes one of the many upon a different theory." Nay, you who causes of gratitude and respect which ren- oppose this Bill are bound to go much dered the administration of my excellent further. You are driven to the admisfriend Sir Richard Bourke memorable in sion that you are ready to do more, and Australia, and a model of imitation to that you hold yourself morally justified in all succeeding governors. In New South doing more for the convicts of Van DieWales, under this wise and impartial law, men's Land and Norfolk Island, than you the Church of England received 17,000l. will sanction or tolerate for the people of per annum; the Church of Scotland 7,000l.; that which is an integral part of your Euthe Wesleyans and other Dissenters 3,400l., ropean Empire. You endow the priests of and the Roman Catholics 10,0971. Nor Australia without any conscientious scruple can I overlook the effects which this truly catholic principle of endowments has prac tically produced on the interests of the Church of England. Has it led to its dishonour or to its decay? On the contrary, I appeal to the right rev. Bench, and ask those prelates who take the deepest interest in missionary proceedings connected with the Church, and to whom the Colonial correspondence on this subject is officially referred, whether they can point out any other part of the Colonial do you refuse to support Maynooth, on the suggestion that it is sinful to do so. I have dealt with the argument as it would stand if we were now for the first time called upon to found a Roman Catholic College in Ireland. I really can hardly condescend to consider the objection as applicable merely to an increase of a grant admitted by all to be inadequate. Such an objection is childish is absurd. The argument, if good at all, applies to the whole grant, and not to its augmentation. The real objection felt, |