moved, that they be read a second time on that day six-months. He did not mean to say, that cases had never occurred wherein inclosures might have been beneficial; but of this he was persuaded, that if the rage for enclosures had been more tempered with discretion, the country would not at that moment have been burthened with such a mass of poor as now existed. With respect to the Bill now before the House, he had paid the greatest attention to it; and it was his duty to state, that the conviction of his mind was, that the measure was pregnant with as much mischief, and promised as little advantage to any person, as any Inclosure Bill that had ever been presented to the House. With the permission of the House, he would read a fair and impartial account of the advantages which the poor derived from their present right of commonage:—

	£	s.	d.
By Fuel	2	12	0
By keeping pigs	1	10	0
By keeping a cow, with or without a calf	2	15	0
By keeping geese, ducks, and fowls	1	0	0
By litter, such as fern, for bedding for the cow, pigs, or colt	0	5	0
	£8	2	0

He was told, that there were about 230 families interested in this common: of those, about thirty-five were freeholders, and out of that number more than twenty were opposed to the enclosure; about one-half of the remainder were said to be consenting parties, and the other half neuter. The remainder, nearly 200 families, were all opposed to the enclosure. It was probable the individuals composing the 200 families could not be fewer than 1,000 persons; most of whom were wholly dependent on their own labour, or the labour of their parents, and the benefits derived from Bucklebury Common. The injustice which would be done to the poor was thus evident. In behalf of the Bill, only one witness was called; and his evidence only went to show, that the Common, if brought into cultivation, would be worth between two and three times its present value; but there was not a tittle of evidence to show that it could ever be brought into profitable cultivation; whereas three witnesses, all men of great practical experience, and two of eminent scientific knowledge in these matters, were decided as to the unredeemed mischief of the proposed measure. Mr. Francis Hawkes, surveyor at Reading, said, that the fencing and ditching, according to the Act of Parliament, would cost 3s. or 3s. 6d. a pole. He did not think half an acre worth enclosing. The fuel was worth a shilling a-week to the cottagers. It would be very difficult to find 200 acres of the common, that would repay the expenditure of capital laid out in enclosing and draining it. "Was it his opinion, that the land to be given to the poor as compensation, would be equivalent to the benefit they now derived from the common?" Answer—"Of course not. The effect of passing this Bill, would be to make the poor pay for that fuel which they now have by right." Question—"Now, you have had a good deal of experience, is it your opinion that the parties generally will derive any benefit from this enclosure?" Answer—"With respect to the small proprietors, they would be injured very materially; but with respect to Mr. Hartley, it would be a great improvement of his property." Mr. David Stewart, a land-agent and surveyor, was asked his opinion of the enclosure. His answer was—"I think it would be in a high degree injurious to the poor, and I do not think it would be beneficial to the public, because the land is of such an inferior quality, that it is not calculated for agricultural purposes." He thought that if the Lord of the Manor intended to convert it into a park, it was a most beautiful situation; but, in such case, he might very well afford to give ample compensation. Mr. Judd, who had been overseer, estimated the value of the fuel at 1s. a-week, and the grazing of a single cow at 3l. a-year. He was asked what had been the result of a neighbouring enclosure twenty years ago; and he answered, that it had increased the poor. "What was his opinion of the probable result of an enclosure of Bucklebury?"—"I think it would increase the Poor-rates very considerably." He thought that if the common were divided into small allotments, they would be of very little value to the labourers, and not equivalent to the loss of the right of common; and that any additional labour, after two years, would be done away with. Under all these hardships to the poor, the hon. Member trusted that the House would assent to his proposition.

wished to say a few words in defence of the Bill. He had no immediate interest in the Bill; it was placed in his hands in the ordinary course, to conduct through that House, and he knew nothing more on the subject than the simple facts of the case. On a former occasion he stated, that he only acted Ministerially with respect to the Bill, and that he was in no other way interested as to the result. The facts were these:—the Lord of the Manor was the proprietor of by far the greater part of the soil. The number of acres amounted to 4,050; of which the Lord of the Manor and seven other individuals assenting to the measure possessed 3,942. The remaining 108 acres belonged to different persons; among these, the number of those dissenting from the enclosure was nineteen, and the number assenting was twelve, who were owners of the common rights. A petition had been presented by 150 tenants-at-will of the Lord against the Bill; but so far from being injurious to their interests, he was of opinion it would protect them. Evidence had been offered to the Committee to show, that the land was capable of great improvement. He admitted, that only one witness had been called to prove that the land was now in an unproductive state, and that it would be rendered highly productive by being enclosed. He also admitted, that three respectable witnesses had been called on the other side, who declared that considerable injury would be sustained by those tenants whose lands were to be enclosed. He did not think, however, that the number of witnesses on the one side and the other, should have any weight with the House, as it was in the power of either party to have called more. Under these circumstances, he trusted the House would permit the Bill to be read a second time.

said, that one of his constituents was interested in the measure, and had desired him to oppose the Bill in his behalf. He, however, felt it to be his duty to do so upon principle. He must say, that an act of greater unfairness toward the poor, in his opinion, had never been committed. They were to be deprived of their rights by the Bill, and no manner of compensation was to be afforded to them. He called upon the House, now, to protect the rights of the poor against the oppression of the great landed proprietors of Berks. He protested against the measure generally, and hoped that such at- tempts to deprive the poor of their rights would not be countenanced by that House.

also opposed this Bill, as it was his intention to oppose several other Inclosure Bills, now in progress through the House, for the reasons stated by the hon. Member who spoke last—namely, because he considered it an infringement of the rights of the poor. The hon. member for Berkshire (Mr. Palmer) had stated, that if the land were enclosed, it would become greatly increased in value, by being rendered productive. The petitions which had been presented to that House, from all parts of the country, complaining of agricultural distress, declared that the best land in the country would scarcely pay the rent, and that, therefore, the present system of Corn-laws must be kept up. He would ask the hon. Member, how that could be reconciled with the pretext set up on the present occasion for depriving the poor of their rights—that the land would be rendered more valuable by the inclosure?

having been a member of the Committee, was desirous to observe, that so far as the evidence adduced before the Committee went, there was no argument advanced that could induce him to withhold his support from the Bill.

gave his decided opposition to the Bill upon public principle. He knew nothing of the facts of the case, but he opposed the measure generally, because he thought the rights of the poor were not sufficiently protected in any Bills of that nature which were introduced into the House. He was himself the Lord of a Manor, and he very well knew, that a universal desire prevailed with the Lords of Manors to encroach on the rights of the public, and particularly of the defenceless poor, and for this reason their conduct ought to be watched with great jealousy by that House. Another ground of objection to this Bill was, with respect to the great amount of tithe which would be received out of this land. He strongly objected to the pressing forward Bills of this nature at the present time. When it was remembered that a great Parliamentary measure for the commutation of tithe was about to pass, it must be admitted, that the present Bill was premature.

said, that it was never contended in the Committee, that the poorer freeholders would not be injured by the bill. The very fact that the Lord of the Manor had offered them compensation proved, that there must be some injury anticipated; and one of the questions before the Committee had been, whether the compensation offered to the poor was sufficient. He admitted, that if the poor-rates of the parish were increased, the principal part of that increase would fall upon the Lord of the Manor, but that was no reason for adopting a measure which was calculated to make paupers of those who had hitherto supported themselves by their industry. Numbers of these poor persons had come to the Committee and stated that they now supported themselves by their own exertions, and were most anxious to continue to do so; they had even implored the Committee, with tears in their eyes, not to make paupers of them by this bill. They said this bill would deprive them of fuel, of pasturage for their cow or sheep, and of various other advantages they now derived from their right of common; indeed, there had been no proof offered that anybody but the lord of the manor would derive advantage from this Bill. He thought that its preamble was not proved—indeed he had divided the Committee upon it, and the report had only been agreed to by a majority of one. In conclusion, he called upon the House to withhold its consent from this Bill, which enabled the lord of the manor to add to his own park at the expense of his poorer neighbours.

, in reply, repeated that he only acted ministerially on the present occasion, and regretted it became his duty to divide the House on the question.

Sir, I rise to present a Petition from the parish of the Bower, in the county of Kilkenny, very numerously signed, and as the petitioners complain, as well almost as all the petitioners on the same subject, of the poverty and wretchedness entailed on Ireland by the Act of Union, I shall trespass on the patience of the House, while I read a letter which I received about six or seven weeks ago, from a gentleman, on whose statement the greatest reliance can be placed—a letter that it was my intention to have read on the Repeal Debate, had I not observed that if I had, not one word of it, or anything I could say in reference to it, would have been attended to after so long a debate. The hon. Member read the following extract of a letter from the reverend Charles Butler Stephenson.

Westcourt, Callan, March 5, 1834.

Dear Sir—Though our politics are somewhat north and south, yet as the member for the county in which I reside, I think it right to make you acquainted with the condition of the poor of the town and liberties of Callan, in order that you may be enabled in your place in Parliament to state from an authentic source the distress which prevails in this country, and the absolute necessity of some legislative enactment for providing employment for the poor. The cholera has been for some weeks amongst us, and has gained an easy victory over our emaciated population; a few hours has generally been sufficient to bring the matter to a fatal termination. We have raised in the town and immediate neighbourhood a considerable subscription, and its effect was almost immediately perceived in the staying of the plague. Our funds, however, are not only exhausted, but we are left in debt, with famine staring us in the face. The number of victims to this dreadful scourge has exceeded one hundred, and though, by the blessing of God, it has much subsided, yet, being no longer able to distribute provisions, we have too much reason to fear its return. The population of the town and liberties of Callan, by the last census, exceeds 6,000, without any means of employment except the occasional demand for agricultural labour at busy seasons of the year. Of these, many hundreds, being principally the wives and children of those who at various times have left the country in search of work, are by trade beggars, trusting to the charitable disposition of the neighbouring farmers, but who, since the introduction of the disease into the town, will not permit them to come near their doors. I protest, that whatever ills might attend a provision for the poor (and having lived many years in England, I am not ignorant of those ills), I would unhesitatingly prefer being subject to them all, rather than be compelled, as I am daily, to witness misery that it is not in my power to relieve. I have of course contributed my mite, about 30l., and have daily employed twenty extra labourers to dig my stubbles, instead of ploughing them; but I have this day been obliged to discharge ten of these poor fellows—and their disconsolate looks, when receiving this notification, though attended with a "God bless your honour for what you have done!"—would, I think, had they witnessed it, have shamed some of our absentee proprietors.

There is more matter of great importance in this letter, as relates to other grievances under which the people of the town and liberties of Callan have great reason to complain: but as I shall take an opportunity of communicating with the right hon. the Secretary for Ireland on this subject, and as it would be irrelevant on the present occasion alluding to them, I shall not trouble the House with the detail. Sir, I consider that this letter would have completely refuted the arguments so gravely made use of in order to convince us of the prosperous state of Ireland in consequence of the Union, and therefore I have to regret, that I had not an opportunity of reading it before the closing of the late debate. But who is the individual who writes this letter? He is not a Repealer or a Radical Reformer, as the very first fine of it proves. No, it is written by the reverend Charles Butler Stephenson, the Protestant rector of the town and liberties of Callan, and some adjoining parishes; and I believe it is unnecessary for me to say, that his letter proves that he not only has a head to be of service in advocating the cause of his fellow-parishioners, but a heart to feel for their miseries; but I beg it to be distinctly understood, that I by no means intend to identify the reverend gentleman's name with the petition I am now about to present, for to borrow an idea of his own, I believe his sentiments on Repeal are much further north than mine. In the last session I presented a petition from Callan, wherein it was stated that previous to the Union they had a considerable trade carried on in it, that there were several noblemen and gentlemen residing in the immediate neighbourhood, and that they returned two Members to the Irish Parliament, in fact, that they were at that period in a state of comparative prosperity. This, I believe, was really the case, and I am now perfectly convinced, that so long as the Union exists, so long will they have nothing to look forward to in future, but, if possible, a greater accumulation of misery. Much has been said about a separation between the two countries during the late debate; some hon. Gentlemen declaring that that was the ultimate object of the advocates for Repeal, others contending that it would be a much more rational object for us Irishmen to seek, and probably wishing to get rid of us on any terms, and some of my hon. friends at this side of the House expressing their horror at the idea of being suspected of wishing for such an event. For my part, the view I take of the subject is, that, without partaking in the slightest degree of the horrors of my hon. and sensitive friends, nor by any means wishing for a separation between the two countries, on the contrary, wishing that a rational connexion between them should exist, such as that in the year 1782, I have not the least hesitation in saying that I think a separation of the countries would be better than to let them remain as they are, bound by a fallacious Union, which in my opinion must eventually end in the ruin of both. As to the question of Repeal, notwithstanding the boasted majority of the other night, I do prophesy that so sure as there is a great and just God in Heaven, so sure must it be carried, and most sincerely shall I offer up my prayers to that Almighty God that it may be carried within the walls of this House. The hon. and gallant Member also presented several petitions against tithes, from Kilpatrick in the city of Kilkenny, signed by 9,195 individuals. One of these, signed by 4,000 individuals, complained bitterly of the Tithe Bill of the right hon. the Secretary for Ireland.

said, facts were the strongest arguments, and these the right hon. the Secretary for the Treasury furnished him with. A fourth of the entire population of Ireland was unemployed; and a fourth part annually passed through the fever hospitals, and a fourth of the population of the city of Dublin, 60,000 persons, were similarly circumstanced every year. Disease was propagated by famine, and continued by privation.

deprecated the discussion of so important a subject, and the presentation of such important petitions in so thin a House. He moved that the House be counted.

said, that he must take the House as he found it. It was not his fault if neither his Majesty's Ministers or other Members attended to their duty there.

would not avail himself of any advantage which his position as a Member of that House would give him to indulge in reference to the management of his Irish estates by the noble Lord (Lord Clifden) alluded to; although he did not mean to say that a landlord, and especially an Irish absentee landlord, was not amenable to public opinion for the manner in which he discharged those obligations that the nature of property implied. He would merely say, that the estate of that nobleman lying near that most wretched place from which the petition came, could be ascertained as distinctly by the appearance which it bore, in contrast with those in its neighbourhood, as if it were set out in metes and bounds by means of painted sign-posts. There was one part, however, of the character of the noble Lord which was a legitimate subject for discussion in that House, and that was his character as a sinecurist. The noble Lord drew, since the period of the Union, a salary of between 1,500 and 2,000l. a-year as clerk of the Privy Council in Ireland, and gave not the shadow of a return. If that salary were distributed amongst the poor of Callan they would have no occasion to appear as beggars for imperial charity. The English ridiculed and inveighed against the Roman nobility who let out their palaces to the rich spendthrifts who flock to Rome; but the Roman nobility had generally the plea of poverty to urge, and they gave their houses for the money they received; but was there not more meanness in a rich Englishman, a nobleman at the head of 30,000l. or 40,000l. a-year, pocketing a salary, and giving nothing in return to the wretched people from which this petition came?

wished to show to the House by a short statement of facts, the weight that was to be attached to petitions presented by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gillon) praying for a separation of Church and State. The other day that hon. Member presented a petition of this description from Glasgow which he said was signed by 49,600 persons. At the time he (Sir D. K. Sandford) doubted the accuracy of the hon. Gentleman's statement, and by an inquiry he had subsequently made on the subject he was now in a situation to show that his conjecture was correct. The whole male population of Glasgow did not exceed 54,000, and from this a deduction of 15,000 was to be made for persons who were unable to write their own names; so that there re- mained only 39,000 who could by any possibility affix their signatures to a petition. These were facts which could not be disputed; and if he were to say, as the fact was, that at least one-half of the male population of Glasgow were hostile to any separation of Church and State, he would render the hon. Gentleman's statement still less worthy of credit.

rose to order. The hon. Gentleman (Sir D. K. Sandford) had no right to discuss the subject of a petition presented on a former day.

said, he did not consider the hon. member for Paisley guilty of any disorder in the observations he had made.

in continuation, contended that the petition to which he referred was a rank imposture, and a tissue of downright trickery. He was ready to prove that a great portion of the signatures attached to it were those of mere boys, and that whole columns of names were nothing more than inventions. He denied, that the great majority of the Dissenters of Scotland were in favour of a separation of Church and State, and asserted that there was a proportion of four to one the other way.

was aware, from his knowledge of the Dissenters in Glasgow, that many of the names affixed to the petition were of the highest respectability, and that every care must have been taken to avoid improper signatures. But he certainly felt startled when he heard that a petition from that city for a separation of the Church from the State had been presented from 50,000 persons. The whole population at the last census was 202,000 of whom more than one-half were females. Of the males, not many more than 50,000 were above fifteen years of age, and of these about one-half were computed to belong to the Established Church. He had been requested to support the object of the petition, with a view to the next election, but he had refused all pledges, and would continue to pursue the even tenor of his way. If ever there was an establishment of which Dissenters had little reason to complain, which was founded not only on the rock of poverty, but of purity, and which was distinguished for the talents, the piety, and the zeal of its clergy, it was that of the Church of Scotland. He had every reason to love and respect the Dissenters, and would strive to remove all their real grievances.

asserted, that no imposition whatever had been practised to obtain signatures to the petition referred to. He had stated no more than the truth when he declared, that the Dissenters of Scotland were almost to a man favourable to the separation of Church and State.

was not surprised, that petitions of that nature were intrusted to the hon. Member, for he believed the hon. Gentleman was the only Member from Scotland who advocated such a proposition.

then rose to bring on his Motion for the repeal of the Act commonly called Home Tooke's Act, prohibiting clergymen from sitting in the House of Commons, provided they are not engaged in the cure of souls. If he were asked, he said, why he wished to restore this privilege to the clergy, his answer was, that it was from no partiality to them, from no personal wish to see them in the House of Commons, but because he was averse from every principle of exclusion, and because he objected to all restrictions, unless some paramount reason could be shewn for maintaining them. Had this exclusion existed with respect to physicians or lawyers, he should have been just as anxious for its abrogation. It was the natural right of every man to be returned to Parliament—it was the natural right of electors to enjoy their suffrages without restraint. The case which led to the enactment which he wished to have repealed, was that of Horne Tooke, who was returned to Parliament in 1801. That distinguished philologist had recommended Lord Camelford (who had had a quarrel with the Minister of the day) to return his black servant as the representative of Old Sarum; but as, on reflection, his Lordship was not willing to go to this extreme, Horne Tooke told him that the next best thing for the country, and the next worst thing for the Minister, would be to return him, and thus he came into Parliament. Lord Temple objected to the return—the matter was referred to a Committee, before whom it was urged that the duties of a Senator would necessarily interfere with the duties of a clergyman, and the reasoning prevailed against the opinions of Mr. Fox, Lord Thurlow, and the most enlightened Statesmen of the day. Who were averse from so great an infringement on the liberty of the subject as that of excluding any class of men from Parliament. The result was the Act 41 George 3rd, c. 63. He did not intend by his Bill to provide that clergymen who had sacred duties to discharge should have the right to sit and vote in the House of Commons, but merely that such a privilege should be given first to any individual who having hastily taken holy orders conscientiously recanted; or secondly, to such as enjoyed no benefices, and had, therefore, no occupation. All he contended for was, that the doors of the House should be open to all who had nothing else to do, and he had no objection to the introduction of a clause declaring that the acquisition of a benefice should vacate the seat. All interests but those of the clergy were represented in the House of Commons, and it seemed to him an act only of justice to admit them. The chief ground on which he relied was, that no reason could be urged to the contrary, and in all questions of the kind the advocates of exclusion were bound to establish their case: the burthen of proof was upon those who maintained the fitness of the existing law. He moved, that "Leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal so much of the Statute 41 George 3rd, c. 63, as prevents persons in holy orders, not holding benefices with the cure of souls, from being elected to and serving in Parliament."

was not aware, until he entered the House, that such a subject was to come before it. The case of Horne Tooke was certainly in point, since he was a man who had early entered the Church, and had for many years conscientiously forborne from the discharge of any of the duties of his sacred character. He could not see why such a man should not be allowed to sit in the House of Commons, although it would be unwise to admit any clergymen in the possession of livings, and who were bound to watch over the morality and religion of their parishioners. If the Bill had gone to that length he should have resisted it; but, according to the explanation of the hon. Member, he saw no reason for refusing to allow it to be introduced.

said, there would be a great difficulty in distinguishing between such clergymen as conscientiously recanted, and such as repented of having taken holy orders for other reasons. The hon. Member had alleged no practical grievance, which resulted from the present state of the law, and although he was a Reformer, he was a Reformer only when it was proved that evils really existed. He, therefore, recommended the hon. Member to withdraw his Motion.

regretted that the hon. Member had not taken up this subject with his usual good sense and discretion. He apprehended that his intention was, to give every clergyman a right to sit in Parliament, who had not a right to sit in convocation; but did the hon. Member think it right, or even decent, that persons in holy orders, perhaps in their reverend habits, should be tempted to expose themselves on a hustings, and to partake of all the contamination of a contested election. Surely, such a situation was unbefitting the sacred character of the gown. The effect of the Bill would be, that young aspiring reverends would struggle for seats in the House of Commons, as the means of obtaining provision in the Church from the minister. Allusion had been made to the case of Horne Tooke, and to his conscientious scruples, but an instance of the kind might not occur again for centuries.

objected to the Motion. The number of beneficed clergymen who wished to give up their profession was so small, that it was not worth while to frame a Bill on their account; and as for the unbeneficed clergymen, he objected to the Bill on their account, for the only effect would be, that if they were once to get a hold of the minister, the latter would be clamoured out of benefices, whether he approved of the parties or no.

did not think that a clergyman would suffer anything derogatory to his character by having to undergo the ordeal of a contested election. At the same time, as he perceived that the sense of the House was against his Motion, he would not press it.

rose, to move for liberty to bring in a Bill to enable Roman Catholics to hold Professorships and Scholarships in Trinity College, Dublin. The question was not merely Irish, for it was connected with the principles on which the claims of the Dissenters were founded. He had originally given notice, that he should move for the admission of Roman Catholics to Lay Fellowships, but, as the Lay Fellows might become Senior, and as the College was governed by the Provost and seven Senior Fellows, he had relinquished his purpose. To such a proposition it might be objected, that Trinity College was an appurtenance of the Establishment—an outwork of the Church. He therefore should not press it, but confine his Motion to the Scholarships and such of the Professorships as were unconnected with the profession of any particular form of religion. He would first state the law as it stood, both under Acts of the Legislature and under Statutes of the University. The Act of Conformity required, that all Fellows and Professors should sign a declaration incompatible with Catholicism. Before 1793, Roman Catholics could not take degrees. That privilege was conferred by the Irish Act of the 23rd George 3rd. By the 7th Section of that Act it was enacted, that they might hold Professorships or Fellowships in any College to be thereafter founded in the University of Dublin, or be members of any Lay Body Corporate, except the College of the Holy Trinity. This clause was virtually adopted in the Act of 1829. Under these Statutes it was clear that no Roman Catholic could become a Fellow. From the Professorships and Scholarships Roman Catholics were excluded by resolutions adopted in the College itself. They must comply with forms at variance with their principles. The question was, whether these forms ought to be dispensed with? and it lay on him to show, that the admission of Roman Catholics to situations unconnected with the Church could not affect the character of the College as a Protestant establishment. First, he should consider the Professorships. The following were those to which he asked for eligibility:—the Regius Professorship of Civil and Canon Law was founded and endowed by Charles 2nd out of the revenues granted to the College by the Act of Settlement. The Regius Professorship of Feudal and English Law was founded in 1761: the office was held by the Solicitor-General for Ireland. The Regius Professorship of Medicine, of Greek, and of Astronomy; the latter was held by a gentleman of great abilities, Dr. Hamilton. He was elected when he was only 19. Had he been a Roman Catholic, his religion would have closed the observatory against him. There could be no sound reason why, to the Professorships of Na- tural Philosophy, Oratory, Mathematics, History, and Oriental Languages, Roman Catholics should not be admitted. In 1785 an Act of Parliament was passed to establish three Professorships—one of Astronomy, one of Chemistry, and one of Botany; and it was provided, "that the said Professorships should be open to Protestants of all nations." This was, at this moment, the law. Was it not a reproach to our Legislation that the natives of Ireland should be excluded from the literary and scientific offices in the only national establishment, and that every Protestant wanderer, no matter whence he might come, should be eligible to those situations? To alien Protestantism the Legislature gave welcome, while to its fellow-citizens and fellow-subjects, who differed on a mystery, it denied the rewards of genius, and the excitements to exertion. He would conclude his enumeration of the Professorships with a reference to those connected with foreign languages. The following was an extract from an official document relating to them. On the 29th of October 1776, the King directed a letter to the Lord-lieutenant:—"Whereas our right trusty and well-beloved Councillor, John Hutchinson, Provost of our College of the Holy Trinity, has introduced into the said College two Professors or teachers of modern languages, the one of whom teaches the French and German, the other the Spanish and Italian languages, now we have granted the yearly sum of 200l. payable out of our revenues in our kingdom of Ireland." In the year 1824, a remarkable incident occurred: a vacancy having taken place, some Italian refugees, men of great acquirements, and who had enjoyed considerable rank in their own country, became candidates for one of these Professorships, an abandonment of their religion was demanded, and the Irish public were shocked to see men who had sustained misfortune in an honourable cause, called upon to yield this inglorious compliance with an intolerant and degrading requisition. He was unable to see any sound objection to the abolition of the impediments which were thrown in the way of talents and erudition. If the Professorships had attached to them any function associated with the State religion, there might be reason for refusing his Motion; but they were totally unconnected with the Church, and unattended with the slightest political authority. The next point to which he should call the attention of the House was the exclusion of Roman Catholics from the Scholarships of the Universities. There were seventy scholars: they held the situation for five years only. There were, consequently, a certain number of vacancies in each year. These Scholarships were instituted for the benefit of the class of students whose fortunes were not ample; so much so, that no persons having above a certain income could hold them. The following account was given of Scholarships in "The Dublin University Calendar:"—'The Scholars are on the foundation, and have their commons free of expense, and their rooms for half the charge paid by the other pensioners. They are excepted from College charges or decrements, and receive an annual salary. They hold their Scholarships until they become, or might have become, Masters of Arts. The number of Scholars is seventy, and of these thirty are termed natives (Hibernici), and receive a higher salary from the College, than the rest; it has been maintained, that these places were not merely intended for those born in Ireland, but for such as spoke from infancy the Irish language.' He would ask, for what possible reason were Roman Catholics, who were allowed to take degrees, excluded from these advantages, except on the terms of a self-degrading conformity with the Established Church? Formerly the scholars had one political privilege, that of voting with the Fellows for a member for the University. That privilege might now be said to have become of little value, since the Masters of Arts had been invested with the franchise. Under the Reform Bill a Catholic could vote; his name, for example, was registered; and yet, if he were in Trinity College to-morrow, he could not become a candidate for a Scholarship. It might be said, that the Scholars were members of the Corporation. What power had they in it? Not the slightest. They could not, if they were all to unite, effect any one decision of the Board. In what way was it possible that, if every one of them was a Roman Catholic, they should prejudice the interests of the Established Church? It might be said, that Protestantism ought to take its stand on the Emancipation Bill. Apply this argument, and the Roman Catholics must be denied their degrees in the English Universities. Flow preposterous was it to allow a Roman Catholic of fortune to enter Trinity College, to obtain pensions and distinctions and degrees, and to deny to those of smaller means the opportunities of advancement which a Scholarship afforded! It was to a young man of moderate income a great object to acquire a Scholarship. How painful it must be to many individuals to be compelled to call on their parents to subtract from their comforts the sum sufficient to support them in the University; and how it must delight the hearts of the affectionate and good, to be placed in that station of independence which might enable them to relieve their families from the burthen incidental to their education! How many a mother, with a family of orphans, had toiled and pinched herself in order to supply a pittance for the instruction of her child; and how much privation it would have saved, and how much pain it would have prevented, had these means been afforded to Roman Catholics of extricating a parent from the necessity of contribution! The distinction made by the exclusion of Roman Catholics was odious. It was one of the badges of ascendancy left on the classes who ought peculiarly to be relieved from it. From the forehead of the rich the stigma had been removed. Let it not then be left on the forehead of the humble student toiling not only for distinction, but for bread. He might be told that many Roman Catholics had been induced to change their religion by the allurements of a Scholarship. The "fishers of men" ought not to use such base baits as these. One of his chief objections to the present system was, that it created in the University a means of despicable and most degrading proselytism, which, instead of raising the interest of the Church, corrupted the morals of the College. So unworthy a temptation ought not to be held out. Take a poor lad, and see how far he was improved by such a progress as that. He left home with his knapsack of literature on his back—became a sizer—distinguished himself—the period when he was eligible to a scholarship arrived—he shrunk at first from the desertion of his creed, although weaned a little by three years of College life from its exercises, and not dedicated to devotion, still the recollection of that form of prayer in which he was instructed, by maternal fondness, and the memory of his home, associated with his early piety, came upon him. But he saw in a scholarship the means of present competence and the avenue to future independence. He hesitated—encompassed by men who scoffed at other creeds besides his, and whispered in his ear what it was needless to repeat; he began, at last, to think that his scruples were but folly, and his principles but prejudice; and throwing off his Christianity and his Catholicity together, he put on remorse and shame, and became a jeering and sardonic renegade. Did the Church gain anything by such a neophyte in Protestantism as that? Did the Legislature, while it plucked up the religion of his heart by the roots, cast the seeds of legal orthodoxy in his mind? It made an apostate, and profaned the steps of the altar with his false and mercenary genuflection. Away with a system of Proselytism like that! Away with this propaganda, not of Protestantism, but of scepticism! for, rest assured, that, in seducing a Roman Catholic, by mercenary motives, from his religion, they did but teach him to deride and scoff at their own. The House—the Government—would be ittle disposed to maintain, that the interests of the Church were advanced by such expedients. He would call on the Government to act in conformity with the principles laid down when the Education Commission was established. The Government had chased the spirit of Proselytism from the inferior departments of education, and from the only national establishment connected with literature and science, it ought to be contumeliously driven. There were eight millions of people in Ireland. It was not from five or six hundred thousand that a supply of genius should be drawn. Search for it wherever it could be found. Let the career of letters be thrown open to all classes of the community. From the Bar, and from the Senate, fanaticism had been put to flight. It was not to the groves of the Academy, that it should be permitted to retreat. He moved for leave to bring in "a Bill for the admission of Roman Catholics and other Dissenters to Scholarships and certain Professorships, as are unconnected with religious instruction, in the University of Dublin."

rose to oppose the Motion. Any one could easily see, that that small beginning was but the first step to the subversion of the Irish University, and, through the subversion of that nursery of the Irish Church, to the total extinction of the Protestant religion in Ireland. That was no slight alteration, as the hon. Gentleman insidiously intimated, but one of great and lasting importance; one that would eventually involve the constitution of the University in destruction. He hoped to convince the Government, since the hon. Member directed his appeal to that quarter, that there was no one principle of justice or national good on which they could stand in introducing any legislative innovation on this subject. First, the hon. Member would open scholarships to all persons of all religious persuasions, or of none. But he well knew that by the constitution of the University, which in the spirit and letter of its Charter was founded, endowed, and upheld for the culture and support of true religion, all its offices were exclusively confined to Protestants. If, indeed, the Irish people stood with respect to the University in the same situation as the English Dissenters did to the English Universities, then there might be some foundation for an appeal to Parliament. But when the Dissenters of all classes were not only allowed the privileges of admission and instruction but even of degrees in the Irish University—when the University was found to answer all the provisions of national education without murmur or public remonstrance from the people—when it was on every side allowed that—