, in moving the Second Reading of the County Rates and Expenditure Bill, said, the subject possessed so little novelty that he thought he might stand excused if he did not press it on the attention of the House with any lengthened observations. It was a subject which had been before Parliament for the last twenty years. Immediately after the Reform Bill two Committees—one of the House of Lords, and the other of the House of Commons—sat to consider the subject of county rates; and, though the object for which these Committees were appointed was not strictly the introduction of the representative system, yet at that time it was held by many influential persons to be desirable that the ratepayers should have some voice in the control of the county expenditure. A Commission was afterwards appointed, of which Mr. Speaker was a Member, and that Commission reported that a plan had been suggested to them which appeared to be reasonable, namely, that the representatives of the ratepayers should act in conjunction with the magistrates in assessing the county rates and in controlling the county expenditure. The Commission distinctly admitted the soundness of the principle that there should be representative control over such large sums as the county rates then amounted to, and which at the present time reached a much larger amount. Subsequently the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) introduced a Bill for the purpose of giving the ratepayers the control that was asked. After struggling against much opposition, his hon. Friend, having many other matters of public interest to engage his attention, gave up the contest. It was from the hands, as it were, of the hon. Member for Montrose that the promoters of the Bill which he (Mr. M. Gibson) now submitted to the House, had received the measure; but he regretted to say that they had been obliged to make very considerable concessions, and to depart very greatly from those sound principles which his hon. Friend originally introduced into the Bill; and they had done so, he admitted, with the views of expediency, that they might get something carried, desiring, on the instalment principle, to take as much as they could get. The Bill which it was now proposed to read a second time, was supported by Members on both sides of the House. It did not assume at all the character of a party measure. In fact, his hon. Friend the Member for South Nottinghamshire (Mr. Barrow) had consented to let his name be put on the back of the Bill; and, from his great knowledge of county matters, his aid was of much value. The measure might be correctly described as a Liberal Conservative measure. Making certain concessions to the representative principle, it reserved at the same time to the magistrates considerable powers, and did not in the smallest degree trench on their judicial authority. When the Bill Was intro- duced in 1849, or rather in 1850, it was referred to a Select Committee, which had the power of taking evidence. The Bill was read a second time, the House distinctly recognising the principle that representative control should be introduced. In 1851 the Bill was again read a second time, and referred to a Select Committee, which, however, had not power to receive evidence. That Committee went through the clauses with great care. It was composed of men qualified to form a sound opinion on the subject. The present First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir J. Graham), the right hon. Member for Morpeth (Sir G. Grey), the present President of the Poor Law Board (Mr. Baines),and the late Secretary for the Colonies (Sir J. Pakington), as members of that Committee, devoted great time and attention to the clauses of the Bill. He (Mr. M. Gibson), with some other Gentlemen who were on the Committee, did not agree to all the alterations which the Committee of 1851 thought fit to introduce. The Committee were by no means unanimous. In one instance, by a majority, the Committee at first sanctioned the view he proposed, though the decision was afterwards rescinded. He should not have ventured, as an independent Member of Parliament, to introduce a Bill at all, knowing the great difficulties which must attend the effort by a private Member of Parliament to carry through a Bill of such magnitude. He should have preferred its being in the hands of the Government. As Parliament had sanctioned the second reading of the Bill, and the subject had been considered in two Committees—he might have said in four—it became, he would suggest, the duty of the Government to introduce a measure on a subject with which for a long period it had been the wish of Parliament to deal. The Government had not, however, shown a disposition to take that course; and he felt it a matter of duty to use what humble powers he had in bringing forward the pre-sent Bill. He hoped, however, that the Government, if they would not take the responsibility of initiating the measure, would, coming to his aid, assist him in carrying it into a law. He was much en couraged to take his present course by the declaration of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer at the commencement of the present Session, who said, with respect to the administration of the county rates—

"I will state generally, on the part of Government, that we have not the slightest objection to the representative principle being carried into any portion of the management of the affairs of this country into which it can be introduced with advantage to the general interests of the community."

On that statement he now claimed the vote of the right hon. Gentleman for the second reading of this Bill, because sanctioning the second reading did no more than give an approval to the introduction of the representative principle for the control of county expenditure. He (Mr. M. Gibson) claimed also the votes of those Members of the Government who were more immediately connected with the late Sir Robert Peel. In 1850 that distinguished statesman supported the second reading of the Bill then before Parliament—a Bill much stronger in its character than the present—and on that occasion he said—

"By voting for the second reading he should admit—what he was prepared to admit—the principle that the representative system should, to a certain extent, be adopted in the administration of the county funds."—[3 Hansard, cix. 832.]

The present First Lord of the Admiralty said—

"His opinion was, that some check, founded on popular election, and consisting of ratepayers acting with the magistrates and on the magistrates, was now necessary, and ought to be established."—[3 Hansard, cix. 827]

He (Mr. M. Gibson), therefore, claimed the votes of those Gentlemen on that side of the House to whom he had referred as connected with the Government; and, as a matter of course, he claimed the votes of the Members of the Whig party, because they had never ceased to advocate at least the principle that the ratepayers ought to be admitted to exercise a control in regard to the county expenditure—that the system established in boroughs with town councils should, as far as possible, be extended to county populations. He should proceed briefly to state in what respect the Bill of which he now moved the second reading differed from the Bill which came out of the Committee in 1851. It might appear singular to hon. Gentlemen, that after the Committee of 1851 devoted so much time and attention to the perfecting of a measure, he should have undertaken to make some not immaterial changes, and to have introduced a Bill different from that to which the Committee agreed. He quite admitted that Members of the Committee might vote against those alterations when they appeared in the Bill, but he anticipated their support on the principle of the Bill. The first material alteration was this: that in consti- tuting the County Board all the members of it should be elected by the elective portion of the Board of Guardians. The Bill of 1851, as it came out of Committee, laid down that one-half of the members were to be elected by the elective portion of the guardians, and that the justices who were to form the other half of the Board were to be elected by the Justices of the Sessions. Although the financial board was to be composed one-half of justices and the other of persons, whether justices or not, who should be elected by the elective portion of the Board of Guardians, the promoters of the Bill thought, that inasmuch as responsibility to the ratepayers was the principle to be established, it was more desirable that the justices who were to form part of the Board should be elected by the ratepayers, rather than by the justices at quarter-sessions. It would be a departure from the principle of the Bill if they did not adhere to that alteration, that principle being that those who constituted the Board should be responsible to the ratepayers. He believed that the proposed mode of electing the Board would be found sound, and consistent with the main objects of the Bill. He attached considerable importance to this amendment of the Bill of 1851. The next change which had been introduced was this: The Bill of 1851. although it gave to the financial board the power of making and levying rates, and of regulating the expenditure of all the moneys collected under the Constabulary Act, did not give to the board all the powers which were exercised by the justices in quarter-sessions under the Constabulary Act. He thought the financial board should have all the same powers as were conferred by Parliament on the town-councils of boroughs, who had complete control over the police. That portion of the law had been found to work well. It was thought right that the financial board should have the same powers as were vested by the Constabulary Act in the justices; but an objection had been started, though he did not consider it of any weight, that the financial board might not be willing to keep up such a constabulary force as was necessary for the safety of the county and the maintenance of an efficient police; a proviso, therefore, had been introduced giving to the justices of the county power to make a representation to the Secretary of State, that, in their opinion the constabulary force was not sufficient for the protection of the county. In making this representation, they would be required to set forth their special reasons. The Secretary of State might then order an increase in the number of the constabulary force, but to such an extent only as should not exceed the number now fixed by law. Another alteration was, that the financial board, having nothing to do with the patronage connected with the gaols, or with the regulations of the gaols, or the discipline in the prisons, it was thought that they should at least have the power of controlling the salaries to be paid to the officers of the gaols. That was a power possessed by the town-councils of boroughs. A decision had recently been given in the case of the York city gaol. It appeared that the town-council would not pay the increased salary of the governor as voted by the justices. On a mandamus, the Court held that the justices could not increase the salary without the consent of the town-council; that showed that it was the intention of the Legislature, that although the justices should have the regulation of the gaols, yet, the salaries of the officers being a matter of finance, they should be controlled by the town-council. Therefore it was provided by this Bill, that, reserving to the justices all powers of regulation, the financial board should have a controlling power in the matter of salaries. With regard to the pauper lunatic asylums, a precisely similar course had been taken. It was proposed to vest in the financial board similar powers in reference to those asylums as were vested in the town-councils by Act of Parliament. These were matters for the consideration of the House. If the House thought it was not right that the financial board should exercise such extensive powers as the promoters of the Bill had thought fit to vest in them, it would be for hon. Members to urge their own views upon the House, and for the Committee to make such alterations as the Bill might require. But at the present time he submitted that these differences of opinion as to the precise amount of power which the financial board should exercise, Would not be a sufficient argument to justify the House in rejecting the Bill upon the second reading; for in agreeing to the second reading they did but sanction the sound constitutional principle that the representative principle should be introduced in some form or other in assessing and expending the County rates. Therefore, with the utmost confidence, he now begged the House to sanction the second reading of the Bill. He did not propose referring it to a Select Committee. He hoped no hon. Member would make any such proposition. If the Bill was to be destroyed at all, he would prefer being relieved of his sufferings at once on the second reading, rather than he put to the torturing process of a Select Committee. They had already had a Select Committee, who examined all the witnesses who could be called; and the House was now, in his opinion, in a condition to legislate upon the subject. He therefore asked the House to take the Bill into their favourable consideration, and to sanction its second reading.

said, that he was anxious to say a few words on this subject on the part of the Government, and possibly the statement which he would have to make might save some of the time of the House. He admitted fully the importance of the matter to which his right hon. Friend's Bill related—it was indeed of much greater importance than it would appear at first sight to one who superficially examined the subject, because it involved not merely the question of local expenditure, but it involved also those very important national considerations, he might say, of the police of counties, and of the treatment of prisoners in general, and that more delicate and interesting subject—the custody of pauper lunatics. It involved, also, considerations connected with the personal feelings and the public position of that most valuable class of men—the unpaid magistracy of the country. With regard to the fundamental principle of the Bill, namely, that of the introduction of the representative system, for the purpose of controlling the county expenditure, he considered that principle to have been so completely admitted by what had passed in regard to this matter in former Parliaments, that he was ready to acquiesce in this Bill so far as that principle was concerned. Therefore it was not his intention to offer any opposition to the second reading, meaning thereby that he acquiesced in the representative principle of the measure. The House, however, must bear in mind that of all the great aggregate of county expenses there was a much smaller proportion than might at first be supposed which was capable of being made the subject of discussion on the part of the magistrates, because a very large portion of the annual expenses of counties arose out of matters regulated by Acts of Parliament, over which no person could exercise any control, so that the House must not expect I that the introduction of this principle could very materially influence the amount of county expenditure. When stating that, he was quite ready to concur in the second reading of the Bill; hut he must say that it was with the view of going into Committee, and there of having the Bill brought back to the provisions of that measure which, in 1851, came out of the Select Committee, where the subject bad been most anxiously and deliberately investigated, and from whence a Bill had come which he believed had received the unanimous concurrence of the Committee to which it had been referred, and in that Bill his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty had concurred. There was one point mentioned by his right hon. Friend (Mr. M. Gibson) in regard to which he himself should not insist upon the adaptation of the present Bill to that of 1851—he meant the question as to how the financial board should be elected. The Bill of 1851 had provided that the financial board should consist of at least one-half magistrates; that half should be elected by the magistrates themselves in quarter-sessions, and that the other half, which might or might not be magistrates, should be elected by the elective portions of the Boards of Guardians. His right hon. Friend, in his explanation of the difference between the several Bills, laid some stress upon the principal provision of the present Bill, which provided that the financial board should be entirely elected by the elective portion of the Boards of Guardians. He (Viscount Palmerston) had no objection to that arrangement. Indeed it struck him that it might be more conducive to the harmonious action of the financial board; and for this reason, if for no other, that if they divided the financial board into two parts, the one part to be elected by the one authority, and the other part by the other authority, each electing body would take special care to elect those of its own kind, that was to say, the magistrates would, of course, elect their half entirely from the magistrates, and the Boards of Guardians in that case would be likely to elect no magistrates as forming part of the half which fell to their share; whereas, if the whole body were elected by the same electoral body, he thought the chance might be that in many cases magistrates might be elected as part of the half which might consist of magistrates or not of magistrates. In all other particulars he cer- tainly would urge the House to adapt the present Bill in all respects to the arrangements of the Bill of 1851. He had only further to say that in agreeing to such a proceeding he trusted that the House and the country would not suppose that the acquiescence of the Government in this change, which was of considerable importance in the arrangements of counties, arose from any distrust whatever in the unpaid magistracy of the country. Nor did he think, himself, that it would he found on inquiry that those magistrates had at all been inattentive to a proper economy of the funds entrusted to their management. He was much inclined to think, although this alteration might he more agreeable and satisfactory to the feelings and opinions of the country at large, that practically it would not be found that any material saving of expense would be effected by it. There might undoubtedly be some instances where magistrates in particular districts had been, perhaps, less attentive than they ought to have been to economical considerations; but, taking the country as a whole, he was disposed to think that those funds over which the magistrates had had the control, had been administered with a due regard to economical considerations and the interests of the ratepayers. And, in fact, the magistrates being themselves a very essential and important part of the ratepayers, it was obvious that they had a personal interest in bringing the expenses within such moderate limits as were consistent with the efficiency of the services which had to be performed. There was another change which had been suggested to him by some hon. Members, and which when the proper time came he thought might well be considered by the House, and that suggestion was that this measure, which naturally might be repugnant to the feelings and opinions of the magistrates at large, might be made optional, instead of imperative—that was to say, instead of compelling any county to adopt it, it might he left to the decision of the Boards of Guardians of that county, as intimated by majority or otherwise, whether the Bill should or should not be applied to their particular county. It had been stated that some counties were very anxious for this Bill; for instance, Lancashire, Nottinghamshire, and others; whilst other counties were not desirous of the change. Upon this question he really could give no opinion of his own; but he merely threw it out as a mat- ter which the House would he called upon to consider during the progress of the Bill. But his only object in rising at present was to state that on the part of the Government he was ready to concur in the second reading of this Bill, with the clear understanding that in Committee the measure— subject to the exception that he had stated—should be brought back to the arrangements of the Bill of 1851.

said, that by adopting the second reading they were adopting all that was objectionable in the principle of the Bill. The principle of the Bill was the establishing a financial county board. He considered such a board to be entirely unnecessary; and that, if established, it would be productive of the worst possible consequences. Why was such a board required? There was already a finance committee in each county, to examine the accounts, and to report upon them to the sessions. All those accounts were made public in the different parishes; and they clearly showed how little control the magistrates really had over the expenditure, and how much they were bound to provide by the power exercised by the Secretary of State under the authority of Parliament. The greater portion of the county expenditure was on account of the interest of money borrowed, and in repayment of the principal, for those essential improvements which the magistrates were bound to make in providing pauper lunatic asylums and county gaols. All their proceedings relating to the county rates must take place in public, and were open to inspection in every respect, so that every security against mismanagement was now afforded to the ratepayers; and by the 15 & 16 Vict., c. 81, passed in the last Session, returns were periodically to be made to the Secretary of State, and were afterwards to be laid on the table of the House; and there was this advantage to be derived from those returns, that they would not only show what rates were actually levied in any particular county, but also afford an opportunity of making a comparison between the expenditure of the different counties throughout England. He held in his hand an account delivered previous to every Session from the county of Middlesex. There was no one subject of expenditure which was not divided from another. There were, also, the details of every separate head which might be made the subject of discussion, if necessary, on the part of the magistrates; and who were those magistrates? They were men entertaining different opinions, and who had an interest in showing them-selves anxious to attend to the concerns of the county. Some of them were the Parliamentary representatives of the people, and were naturally desirous of showing how much care they took of every 5l. or 10l. of the money raised from the ratepayers, who were their constituents. He (Mr. Fresh-field) took an active part in the management of the financial concerns of what he might term his own county (Surrey), and he could vouch for an extent of care and economy in the expenditure of county money, quite equal to that which took place in Middlesex; and no vote open to observation ever passed without criticism, nor was such criticism ever discouraged. The magistrates were, in fact, engaged in discussing their own concerns, in an expenditure principally paid by themselves, directly, or through their tenants. By the proposed measure power would be put into the hands of the ratepayers to decide upon questions whether this or that expenditure should take place, not with reference to the necessity of such expenditure, but in order to limit the expenditure to the lowest possible amount:—improvement would be out of the question. There would be that difficulty to be contended with if these financial county boards should be established. The Boards of Guardians were not intrusted to elect the district surveyor, under an important Bill introduced by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, and the Bill failed in consequence; but they were to be intrusted to elect a financial board, The noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) was of opinion that there would be a propriety in allowing the Board of Guardians to elect both the magistrates and those who were not magistrates, who should constitute the financial board; but had the noble Viscount considered that in some counties there were magistrates who were desirous to expend not only as little as they ought, but less than they ought, and who were guided, not by a feeling of economy, but of parsimony? Now, the Board of Guardians would probably wish to elect such men. The consequence would be that there would not be a fair representation of the magistracy of the county on such a Board. On the contrary, you would have those magistrates elected who had made themselves conspicuous in advocating measures for limiting the expenditure of the county, however proper that expenditure might be. You would not have a Board composed of magistrates on the one hand and ratepayers on the other, but you would have a Board composed altogether of a peculiar class of men. See, again, the power which it was proposed to confer on the ratepayers. A man paying, it might be, upon a rental of 30l., a year would have a control coextensive with the largest landowner in deciding upon what improvements should be adopted in the county. He did not wish the ratepayers to be made to pay a shilling more than they ought; and if there were any particular counties where this Bill was desired, let them be placed under such a measure; but, at all events, a general Bill ought not to be forced upon the great majority of the counties which were satisfied with the present system. An hon. Friend of his the other day said that the question of the hop duty was one of Sussex against all England; and he (Mr. Fresh field) would venture to say that this was a question of Lancashire against all England. So far as Middlesex and Surrey were concerned, he could affirm that no proposition more unnecessary or more objectionable could enter the imagination of man. But there were some counties where the interests of the ratepayers were not so well provided for. Let his right hon. Friend bring forward a proposition to give them more ample powers to control the expenditure of tin-county rates, and he would find him (Mr. Freshfield) ready to support it. But let him not press such a measure as this upon the counties indiscriminately. The noble Lord appeared to consider it a measure perfectly agreeable to the magistrates; on the contrary, it was regarded as a degradation of the magistrates. It was true that their judicial powers were reserved to them; but, practically, they would be very much impaired by a measure of this sort. The confidence of the people would be withdrawn from them. The ratepayers would be taught not to rely upon the magistrates, although they might be acting for the public advantage. What, after all, was the amount of the county rate? He doubted whether in any county in England the rate exceeded 4d. in the pound, and of that sum probably not more than one halfpenny in the pound was levied for an expenditure which could be regarded as voluntary: all the remainder, as he had before stated, consisted of payments for works which the county had been compelled to execute under public authority. It was in the levying of such a rate that the representative principle was to be introduced. Why was not the same care shown in regard to the highway rate? The surveyor of the highways was allowed to levy three tenpenny rates upon his own authority, and yet for this small amount of four-pence, he would rather say one halfpenny, in the pound, the whole system of management was to be changed. But since the noble Lord had thought it his duty to give his sanction to the principle of this measure, he (Mr. Freshfield) owned he should have been much more satisfied if the noble Viscount had determined to take the responsibility of the Bill upon himself; as an opportunity might have been afforded of removing from it much of its objectionable character. It was unfortunate that the noble Lord had, to some extent, consented that there should be a county financial board. If there should be any such board instituted, let it be formed how it might, he would say that from that moment there would be an end of all improvements in the county. No such board could be satisfactory to the public, or beneficial to the public interest.

said, he was rather surprised to hear his hon. Friend at this time of day utter the strong denunciations which he had done against the Bill before the House, because he (Sir B. Hall) had thought that all those old Tory denunciations in reference to the conduct of the magistrates of this country had been long since exploded. He was glad that his noble Friend (Visct. Palmerston) had sanctioned the principle of the Bill; and, although he concurred with his noble Friend in the opinion that it was not likely the measure would effect any very great reduction in the county expenditure, yet he believed it would introduce a principle which would give general satisfaction. The people would know that the great principle of local self-government had been adopted in the management of the county expenditure; and that if any extravagance should in future occur, they would themselves be alone to blame, and the odium would no longer be thrown on the magistrates, as now, whether justly or not. The hon. Gentleman had said that this was a question of Lancashire against all England. Now, considering his (Sir B. Hall's) connexion with the county of Middlesex, he might be supposed to know something of the feelings and wishes of the people of that county, and he could most truly say that the people of Middlesex wished to have a control over the expenditure of the county rates. His hon. Friend had said that everything was conducted by the magistrates in open court; that the accounts were gone through and audited in the most satisfactory way; and that the public might come and see how the management of the expenditure was conducted. Now he (Sir B. Hall) believed his hon. Friend was a Member of the House when Lord Stanley of Alderley brought in a Bill to compel the magistrates to have a public audit of the expenditure of the county; and the very same argument was then used as now, about the degradation that such a measure inflicted upon the magistrates, that it threw a stigma upon them, and that they ought to be permitted to conduct their proceedings in secret, as they had hitherto done. Lord Stanley's Bill was carried, and he was glad to hear his hon. Friend say that it had worked well. There was another proposition laid down by his hon. Friend which called for remark. His hon. Friend asked whether men who paid even the smallest amount of rates, should have the same power of giving the same vote for a bond of audit of accounts as the man who paid the largest amount of rate? He (Sir B. Hall) would at once answer the question by asserting that every ratepayer, without distinction, ought to have the power of voting proposed to be given to him by this Bill. One of the greatest evils of parochial legislation was the system of a plurality of votes. He trusted that nothing of that sort would be inserted in this Bill. The noble Viscount had thrown out a suggestion as to whether this should be a permissive or a compulsory measure. Generally speaking, he thought, if a good principle were once laid down, it was much better to make the measure founded upon it compulsory than permissive. Some Boards of Guardians might wish to bring the Bill into operation, and yet might not be able to do so unless the law was made compulsory. With regard to the proviso that the whole financial board should be elected by the guardians, he considered it to be a most salutary provision; it would never do to allow the magistrates to elect one half, and the ratepayers the other, and the House might be assured that the ratepayers would always elect to the Board those parties who did their duty, and reject the others.

said, he had listened with satisfaction to much that had fallen from the noble Viscount with respect to the Bill before the House; but he could not help asking him and the House to bear in mind the animus which was but too palpable throughout the measure—and which clearly was to strike a blow at the magistracy of England. This measure had been brought forward annually for many years past, and the noble Viscount might not be aware that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. Gibson), in his Bill of last year—which materially differed from all his preceding Bills—proposed altogether to dispense with the services of the magistrates of England from his contemplated county boards. The House rejected by a large majority that measure on the second reading, and the right hon. Gentleman now reverted to his old proposition, not, however, without candidly avowing that his object was to proceed by instalments to supersede the magistracy in the discharge of their financial duties. The right hon. Gentleman had repeated two glaring fallacies in these discussions, until, no doubt, he believed them himself—the first of which was, that the magistracy of England had an arbitrary and unlimited power of taxation. So far from this being the fact, the functions of the magistracy were strictly and rigidly confined within the four corners of the Acts of Parliament by which their duties were imposed upon them. The other fallacy was, that of drawing the false and invidious distinction—against which he had always protested—of arraying the magistrates on the one hand, and the ratepayers on the other, as two opposite bodies. The truth was, that no portion of the ratepayers could have a more direct interest in economy and retrenchment than the magistrates themselves had, for they were generally the largest ratepayers. It was said that the magistrates were apt to indulge their taste in architectural ornaments, without regard to economy; but he thought that more popular bodies were not altogether free from faults of the same kind, and he believed that one of the most costly gaols in the country had been built by the freely elected town council of the borough of Birmingham. After the announcement of the course that the Government was to take, he (Sir J. Pakington) did not intend to press his opposition to the second reading of this Bill; but he wished it to be distinctly understood that he reserved to himself the right to take the gravest objections hereafter to all its most material provisions. The Bill required very important alterations, and if it was to be passed, it ought to be taken up by the Government, and not left in the hands of a private Member. The noble Viscount was greatly in error in saying that the Bill of 1851 received the unanimous approbation of the Select Committee. He (Sir J. Pakington) was himself a Member of that Committee, upon which he could state that there was great division of opinion, and one of the most important provisions of the Bill was only carried by a single vote. The worst part of this Bill was the restriction of the number of justices to serve upon the board to the same number of members as were to be elected by the Board of Guardians. The effect of this in his own county (Worcestershire), where there were twelve unions, would be, that the board would consist of twenty-four members, one half of whom only would be justices, and the consequence would be that the magistrates, who were now two hundred in number, would be cut down by a sweeping reduction to twelve. Such a measure would create the greatest disgust throughout England, among gentlemen, who, to their own honour and to the benefit of the country, had been accustomed to discharge the important functions of the magistracy. He maintained that it would be most impolitic and unwise, for the sake of any abstract theory, to deprive the magistracy of the powers which they had hitherto exercised with such advantage to the country. He would not have objected to any proposition to place a certain number of elected members upon each board; but nothing could justify the wholesale disfranchisement of the magistracy which this Bill contemplated. He could not agree with the noble Viscount that it was an improvement to have the magisterial members elected by the Board of Guardians, instead of by the magistrates themselves; and he further objected to the transfer of other than poor-law duties to the Boards of Guardians, who had quite enough to do already without throwing additional duties upon them. He would not detain the House any longer, but simply express his belief that this measure, even if it were adapted to the provisions of the Bill of 1851, would seriously tamper with a system which was intimately connected with the administration of justice and the preservation of order in this country. The right hon. Member who introduced their Bill, admitted economy was not an object in view. What, then, did he seek? For centuries the Legislature had confided the working of our laws to the magistracy; and now they were going to transfer the management of the internal affairs of the counties—their gaols, lunatic asylums, bridges, &c—to a new body, untried and inexperienced. It was one of the greatest questions the House could consider, whether the body proposed to be constituted could administer county affairs as well as those who had been so long intrusted with them.

said, that after the obsesvations that had just fallen from his right hon. Gentleman who had just resumed his seat, he could not refrain from rising to express his concurrence in all that had been stated by his noble Friend (Viscount Palmerston) with regard to the second reading of this Bill. He thought that it was desirable, and would be more satisfactory to the ratepayers throughout the country, that the representative principle should be applied to the constitution of bodies charged with the administration of financial affairs. When a Member of a former Government, he (Sir G. Grey) had assented to the second reading of the Bill of 1851 of the right hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson), although objecting to many of its provisions, in order that it might be referred to a Select Committee. The Bill was so referred, and the Committee, after much deliberation, effected important alterations in the measure, the principle of which alterations was, that whilst it was desirable that boards with the representative principle infused into them should have the control of the financial affairs of counties, not only their judicial duties, but also their executive powers with regard to the management and control of the constabulary, the gaols, and lunatic asylums, should be reserved to the magistracy. On the present occasion he understood that his noble Friend the Home Secretary intended to go back substantially to the alterations which the Committee made in the Bill of 1851; and therefore, agreeing to the general principle of the Bill, and understanding that his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester was willing to give a fair consideration to the Amendments proposed by that Committee, he (Sir G. Grey) would support the second reading.

said, that none of those who had consented on a former occasion to the second reading of the Bill, had given their approbation to the measure. The Select Committee had decided to reserve the control of the gaols, lunatic asylums, bridges, and such matters, to the county magistracy, and he hoped the House would agree to that decision. He trusted the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) would see that any clauses which might be introduced would really work, for the great difficulty in managing these Acts was to work them so as not to bring county affairs to "a dead lock," which would inevitably be the case if the Bill was passed in its present state. He warned the noble Viscount to beware lest a conflict should arise as to the executive administration of gaols and lunatic asylums, and to see that it was confined to one body, for he could not expect the unpaid magistracy to take on themselves the responsibility of management if they found themselves controlled by a body which was not responsible. He had the greatest objection to create these electoral colleges in the counties. If they must have elections, let them have elections by the ratepayers at large, as Poor Law Guardians were elected. On the whole, seeing the objections which had been expressed to the Bill by the noble Viscount and the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir G. Grey), he hoped the Government would bring in a measure of which they would assume the full care and responsibility, and that the present Bill might be withdrawn.

said, he entirely concurred in the opinion which had been expressed by several hon. Members with respect to the great importance of retaining in the hands of the magistracy the powers they now possessed over the county gaols and lunatic asylums; and, if the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henley) referred to the Bill of 1851, he would find it contained express provisions for that purpose. The object the Select Committee of last year had in view was to prevent the powers which were most wisely and beneficially vested in the magistracy from being transferred to the new financial boards. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington) had made one mistake with respect to the operation of this Bill, when he said that only half of the board could be composed of magistrates. One half of the board must be magistrates—the other half might be magistrates, if the ratepayers pleased to elect them. It was also a misapprehension to suppose that the proceedings of those boards would be secret, for the 58th clause provided that all the business of the county board should be discussed publicly. He agreed to the second reading of the Bill on the grounds stated by his noble Friend the Home Secretary.

said, he was one who wished to preserve property and the rights which belonged to it, and he desired to have the details of the Bill honestly carried out. He objected to the extremes of the coincidence of taxation with representation, and he believed the Bill avoided them, while it sufficiently protected the rights of property by giving it, to a certain extent, a plurality of votes. He was surprised to hear the objection that the electoral privilege was not rightly vested in the Board of Guardians, and ought to be vested in the ratepayers, because the Boards of Guardians were ratepayers, with a strong interest to restrain county expenditure within proper limits, and were frequently presided over by noblemen and Members of that House. For the same reason he could not imagine there would be any improper selection of the financial boards. He was not willing to interfere with the unpaid magistracy; but as to the remark which had been made, that they had exercised those executive powers for many years, he believed that those powers had been conferred on them by driblets, as Act passed after Act, and in the absence of proper machinery to carry out their provisions, which was now supplied by this Bill. It was as well to remind the House also, that, under the system which had prevailed, the county rates had been doubled in the last twenty years. He was quite sure the measure would, if passed, increase the confidence of the county ratepayers as to the employment of their money. He did not believe there would be that extreme economy and absence of public improvement which some hon. Gentlemen seemed to apprehend; and in proof of this he knew that since the rates had been administered by the ratepayers in towns, the amount of money spent upon works of improvement in those towns had been most excessive. This was a very strong answer to those who said that a financial board elected by ratepayers was likely to be characterised by extreme economy.

said, that in the county of Chester the magistrates had adopted a plan very much in consonance with that proposed in this Bill. At every petty sessions they elected one of their number to a financial board which had the sole control of the finances of the county, instead of the body at large.

said, there were two offices created in this Bill which were now unknown, and he believed that so far from producing economy, this would be a mea- sure of extravagance. One part of the Bill upon which hon. Members had omitted to touch, demanded, he thought, the utmost care, namely, that portion which affected lunatic asylums. He was chairman and treasurer of the lunatic asylum for the county of Leicester, and from his knowledge of the management of that asylum, he was quite sure that if the operation of the 9th of Vict. c. 126, were interfered with by this Bill, it would most materially affect the interest, and operate very prejudicially to the working, of that institution. He should therefore at the proper time think it his duty to offer his strenuous opposition to that part of the Bill. As, however, he had ever been friendly to giving the ratepayers some power over the control of county matters, he should under certain conditions, be very glad to assent to the second reading of the Bill.

said, he could state that there was nothing short of an unanimous feeling in the Boards of Guardians with which he was acquainted in favour of having that control over the expenditure of the county which justice demanded they should have. At present there existed in the minds of the ratepayers suspicions as to the magistrates, which interfered very much with the discharge of their magisterial duties. The ratepayers suspected that in the dispensation of patronage—in the case, for instance, of the rural police—the magistrates exercised that power more for the protection of their own property than for the general good, as well as with regard to the erection of bridges and other works. As a magistrate, he knew that those suspicions were quite unfounded, but at the same time magistracy would be raised in the estimation of the ratepayers by removing the possibility of attaching such an imputation to them. It was a constitutional principle that those who paid the rates should have a control in expending those rates; and he should therefore support the second reading of the Bill.

said, he thought the Bill ought to have been brought forward by Her Majesty's Government. After the reforms of 1832 and 1833 were settled he pressed the Ministry of that day to put the counties in the same position as the Reform Act had placed the boroughs—that was, to put the control of the expenditure in the hands of the ratepayers. The Government appointed a Commission, who took evidence as to the propriety and necessity of that change, and in their report the Commissioners said it was impossible not to admit that persons who contributed to the county rate should be allowed a voice in expending it, instead of the irresponsible power which now existed. On that Report, attended by copious evidence, being laid upon the table of the House, he had pressed the Government to bring in a Bill to carry out its recommendations. The Government declined to do so, but offered him assistance if he would bring in such a measure. He had, in consequence, prepared a Bill, which was introduced in 1837, but when the time came for discussing it, he and the Bill were left to their fate. After trying it a second and a third time, he had given the thing up; and now, after the lapse of fifteen years, he saw the principle acknowledged. He hoped there would now be an end of squabbling on the subject, and that the Government would take it into their own hands. He wished to see the broad principle of representation and taxation carried out, and the board elected by the whole body of ratepayers. He was against putting into the hands of the county magistrates the disposal of any portion of the general taxation of the country, having seen the waste which attended the expenditure for the maintenance of prisons and other objects under the present system. The appointment of a public prosecutor would lead to a great saving of expense as regarded prosecutions, and put an end to the extravagance arising from a system of divided powers. There were many anomalies in the present practice which ought to be done away with, and he objected to the executive Government paying a single shilling to the counties, except under strict powers of supervision and control. There was an ample field for effecting a great reform in this matter, and securing economy, responsibility, and efficiency. He advised his right hon. Friend (Mr. M. Gibson) not to run counter to the Government upon this question, but to take the admission which the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) had made, and to let the additional improvements suggested be added to the Bill.

said, there appeared to be a great desire to assimilate the management of the county expenditure to that of boroughs; but he should regard such a change as one of the most detrimental that could be effected. He was satisfied no greater injury could be inflicted on the counties in the west of England than to transplant into them a system of management similar to that which prevailed in the boroughs, especially under the Municipal Reform Act.

said, that on the understanding that he should have the support of the Government in doing so, he would agree to alter the Bill so that it should correspond with the Bill which came out of the Committee of 1851, with the exception of the mode in which the financial board should he elected. He would therefore, after the Bill had been read a second time, ask to be allowed to commit the Bill pro formâ, in order to introduce those changes in it.

, as a Roman Catholic, and the representative of a large Catholic constituency in Ireland, was anxious last evening to take an early part in the debate, in reply to the statement of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, and to say why it was he could support neither the original Motion nor the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Scholefield). But as he had not the good fortune to have been taken by the Chair, he had now to throw himself on the indulgence of the House—as he felt he presented himself under some disadvantage—while he stated the case he was anxious to establish against both the Motion and the Amendment, and in favour of the religion he professed. He would not be tempted by the irritating topics introduced into the debate, particularly by the mover of the Resolution, to enter on the subject with any angry religious or sectarian feelings. He would endeavour to treat the question dispassionately and with forbearance. Before he proceeded to the immediate question under discussion, he would refer to a subject which he considered was irrelevantly introduced into the debate by the hon. Member (Mr. Spooner). He meant the alleged conduct of the Roman Catholic clergy at the late elections, as if that conduct, supposing it to be true, which he denied, had anything whatever to say to the endowment of Maynooth, or to the system of education adopted in that institution since 1845. He was very unwilling to attribute motives to any one unless they were patent and undeniable; but, with all due respect for the hon. Member, he could not help thinking that the introduction of this irrelevant subject was for a purpose, and with an object to keep alive in the minds of Members who were to try the merits of petitions from Ireland, alleging intimidation against the sitting Members—the exaggerated statements circulated by the press in reference to the conduct of the Catholic priesthood—in order to prejudge these cases. The Member for New Ross (Mr. Duffy) had last evening showed the House what little reliance was to be placed on the statements which were read by the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner), some of them taken from Sir Francis Head's veracious revelations after a fortnight's visit to Ireland, and others of them, the mere inventions of the press, bitterly hostile to the people of Ireland, their religion, and their clergy. He, however, was quite ready to admit that the Catholic clergy had thrown themselves heart and soul into the contest during the last general election, from the conviction that their religion was in danger. Who was it that produced that feeling? Why, the hon. Member himself (Mr. Spooner), sustained, cheered, and encouraged by the late Government—nay, the late Government themselves, mainly contributed to the excitement in Ireland by stirring up for election purposes the re- ligious prejudices against Catholics existing in this country, and producing a bitterness and intolerance greater than was over before exhibited since the time of Charles the Second. They issued the Queen's proclamation, putting down innocent religious processions, prohibiting out of doors certain aesthetic observances of the Catholic religion, and bringing forth some of the obsolete penal provisions of the Emancipation Act, in order to prevent the Catholic clergy wearing any costume designating their snored profession. What was the consequence? Why, through the length and breadth of England the Catholic clergy wore openly insulted; aye, even in the streets in the open day, and in the very presence of the police—and the whole ended in the Stockport riots, acquiesced in, nay, encouraged, by the civil authorities of the town—the churches of the Catholics were broken into and desecrated, and the most high and sacred mysteries of their religion trampled on and profaned. Was it, then, wonderful that the Catholic clergy of Ireland should have looked upon the contest as a religious struggle, and have made every effort to send men into that House who would endeavour to counteract that existing anti-Catholic feeling, and stand up for their religion and its doctrines, whenever the one was insulted, or the other impugned. Having said so much on the irrelevant topic introduced by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, he would proceed to the matter more immediately under the consideration of the House, and would state why it was he was not prepared to accede to either the Resolution or the Amendment. He would then, in the first place, take his stand upon this patent fact: That one-fourth of Her Majesty's subjects in this United Kingdom wore Roman Catholics, and of this one-fourth, some four or five years ago, 7,000,000 wore the Roman Catholic population of Ireland, and even now, after that population had been more than decimated by famine and pestilence—after nearly a million of that population had left their shores to seek across the Atlantic their fortunes in some happier land—even now the Catholic population of Ireland exceeded, not 4,000,000, as stated by the Secretary of Ireland (Sir John Young), but 5,000,000. Well, this population has remained true to the religion of their forefathers, notwithstanding all the efforts of various character that were made cither to coerce or to induce them to desert it. First, it was prosecution, and perse- cution, and penal laws; the son was set against the father, the child was refused the ordinary advantages of education, the Catholic schoolmaster was prohibited from teaching, the Catholic priest was banished from the land, and, if he were discovered in openly exercising the functions of his sacred calling, he was liable to penal transportation—the property of the Catholic was at the mercy of his Protestant neighbour—the Catholic occupier could have no tenure of the land he cultivated, the land of his birth, the land of his forefathers. In fine, as an Irish Lord Chancellor stated, the very existence of Catholics was ignored by the laws of the country. In latter days and modern times, after this persecution proved abortive, they tried to seduce the people by corrupt influences, acting upon their poverty, to desert their religion. Thank God, it was no crime against the laws of this country, as it was in Tuscany and elsewhere, for a man, if he believed the faith he professed to be the best and to lead most surely to salvation, to endeavour, legitimately, to induce others to follow his example, and to adopt his religious principles; but, at the same time, he considered it morally criminal to bring corrupt influences to bear on the distress and poverty of the people to seduce them from their faith, and to engender in the population one of the worst vices of human nature—that of hypocrisy. Well, notwithstanding all this prosecution, and persecution, and seduction, the people of Ireland remained true to the faith of their forefathers—true to that religion which they are taught to believe has descended to them in unbroken succession from the Apostles—true to that religion which is taught, by what the noble Lord the Member for London, in the debate on the Maynooth endowment in 1845, called truly "the most ancient branch of the Christian Church"—true to that religion which is professed by 200,000,000 of the human race, and by two-thirds of Christendom—true to that religion that inculcates the same divine injunctions as do the Protestants—"Peace and good will amongst all men"—"Do unto others as you would be done by"—"Love God above all things, and your neighbour as yourself"—true to that religion which gives practical effect to the evengelical counsels. Where, he would ask, but in the bosom of the Catholic Church was the evangelical counsel of "Give all thou hast to the poor; take up thy cross and follow me," faithfully carried out? Let them go to the nunneries that have been so much abused—let them go to the abodes of those high-born and religious ladies who live in communities, and who were threatened in the last Parliament with magisterial visitations—let them go to the monasteries that have been held up to the execration of the population of that country—to Mount Melleray, in Ireland, for instance, and they would find persons of rank and station abandoning wealth and society, in order, in retirement and obscurity, to carry out these gospel counsels. Ireland has been true to that religion—to the religion which the most eminent divines of the Established Church have embraced after years of study and research—abandoning station, family connexions, worldly prospects and affluence, because they believed that there they would receive spiritual peace, comfort, and enjoy the entire' blessings of hope. Well, then, it was an "accomplished fact" that the national religion of Ireland, as the Duke of Wellington called it, was the Roman Catholic. What was the State and the Government to do under such circumstances? No effort of theirs of any character could change that religion. What was to be done? The State and the Government had introduced the national system of secular education, and the collegiate secular system for the middle classes. He had always supported the national system; and, amidst much obloquy, had given his countenance to the Queen's Colleges, because he believed that secular education fitted the mind for the reception of religious truth; but, at the same time, he always held that no secular education was of value—nay, that it was an evil unless sustained, supported, and accompanied by religious education. If, then, the State and the Government voted large sums for secular education, in order to make men better subjects and better citizens, how much more reason, on the same ground, was there to contribute to their religious education. It was, therefore, that he always held that if the national religion of Ireland and its clergy could, under such a system, preserve their independence of the State, and that that mutual dependence of the priesthood and the people could remain undisturbed, the State was bound to provide churches and maintain them for the benefit of the people, and glebes or manse houses for the clergy. If that were his opinion, with how much more force did that opinion bear upon the question of giv- ing a high moral and religious education to the youth destined for the priesthood of the national Church, and thus, to use the language of the noble Lord the Member for London, to make them "better men, aye, and better Christians, too." Here he had to contend against the "voluntary principle." Now, the voluntary principle did very well in a rich country like England, where every member of the sectaries in the land could well afford to contribute muni-ficiently to support, in affluence, the clergy of his congregation. But, in a poor country like Ireland, where a large mass of the population was immersed in misery and destitution—produced by misgovernment and neglect—the thing was altogether different. Besides, its Church property was taken forcibly from the national religion. The present Lord Harrowby, when, as Lord Sandon, he sat in that House, in 1845, asked this question in the Maynooth debate: "Was not the Church property transferred from Catholic to Protestant hands, and merely by the will of England, and because England, and not Ireland, had become Protestant?" But, it was not only that the national religion was deprived of its Church property—that law prevented its being endowed from private sources—that being the state of facts, when all this policy failed, and the religion remained triumphant and progressive, what course had the Government to adopt but to give the means of education to a priesthood they could not destroy? Accordingly, it is remarkable that the first measure allowing the Catholic religion to be endowed, was the Act of the Irish Parliament, in 1795, allowing the endowment of Maynooth College. What were the reasons of state that induced this change of policy, it is not easy to ascertain. Mr. Grattan stated that it was because the people of those kingdoms were shut out from the Continent by the war, and the clerical students could not go to their "Burses" on the Continent. Others, with perhaps more reason, alleged that the Government were afraid that those who were destined to be spiritual instructors of British subjects, and to have enormous influence in Ireland, would, on the Continent, imbibe the then prevailing political opinions, which were so adverse to the interests of England; at all events, it was clearly a political move, and not one springing from any love for the national religion. The clergy did not require it; they would have been educated by the munificence of private individuals, aided by the bounty of foreign Sovereigns, as they had heretofore been, and as they would have been again if this endowment was taken away. The Member for North Warwickshire referred last evening to a letter written at the time by the Cardinal Prefect of the Propaganda, calling on the bishops and clergy to be grateful for this boon, accompanied as it was by an annual vote of 8,000l. a year. Well, the people and clergy were grateful; for at the time when the Catholic population did not exceed two millions, the grant was adequate for its purposes; but when the Catholics became seven millions, and were increasing in wealth, Sir Robert Peel, with great truth, said, that the annual vote had only a tendency "to discourage and paralyse private benevolence." It was then that he came down, and proposed the existing endowment of 27,000l. a year, out of the Consolidated Fund, in order, as he said, "to improve the system of education at Maynooth, and elevate the tone and character of the institution." The people of Ireland were sensible of the enlightened motives which induced this measure, and of the difficulties which surrounded the Government who, amidst such unprecedented opposition, carried it through; and though they thought, with Mr. O'Connell, at the time, that 70,000l. a year would not have been too large a restitution, still they were satisfied and quiescent after this "message of peace" was sent to them; and though they saw before them the rich Church establishment in possession of 600,000 acres of the richest land of Ireland, which once belonged to their own Church, and with an income of over half a million sterling annually, and lifting its head as a badge of degradation of the Catholic majority and of ascendancy of the Protestant minority, still they were quiescent until, at last, the Member for North Warwickshire stirred up that flame which he will find it exceedingly difficult to extinguish. Well, now, what are the objections to this endowment? He would, in the first place, take the objection on the ground of the "Voluntary Principle," because many of his friends near him were conscientiously opposed to this and all other endowments on this principle. Respecting this objection, he would suggest to them to record their opinions by supporting the Motion of his Friend the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Scholefield), instead of voting for the original Resolution, which, if they supported, they might aid practically in giving an effectual blow to the educational establishment at Maynooth belonging to an unendowed and poor Church, while the rich Church Establishment would remain intact, for it is clear that the time has not yet arrived when that strong fortress can be even approached. There would not be even-handed justice in such a course. The next objection is, that the doctrines taught at Maynooth are so inconsistent with the Protestantism professed by a majority of the nation, that its support is not to be justified. Well, the same argument would tell equally well against the Roman Catholic Establishments in Canada, in Australia, in Malta—the colleges for Hindoos and Mahomedans in India, and the protection given the Budhist faith at Ceylon. After all, hon. Members should recollect that, putting some dogmatic teaching aside, the moral and leading truths inculcated, by both religions, are the same; and as the Catholics contribute their share to the taxation, their religious institutions are as fully entitled to be maintained by the whole community. The next objection is, that the Catholic religion is antagonistic to the Church Establishment, and ought not to be thus encouraged. Well, it is true that the two Churches are antagonistic, but still they are Christian Churches, and this very antagonism and collision leads to the development of truth, and a strict and rigid observance of Christian practices by the professors of both religions. The next objection is the most painful of all. It is, that immorality and disloyalty are taught at Maynooth. Now, the Member for North Warwickshire professed to instruct the House in this branch of the inquiry, and he stated that he had read the works of the writers to whom he alluded and libelled. Now, he (Mr. Fagan) felt convinced, from the statements made by the hon. Member, that he never read that most valuable report of a Royal Commission empowered to examine in 1827 into the system of education at Maynooth; for, if he had, he would have seen all his statements answered and overthrown in every line of that, one of the most remarkable volumes in the library of that House. The hon. Member referred to some doctrines taught by Bellarmine and St. Thomas Aquinas. Now he (Mr. Fagan) as a Roman Catholic, repudiated those doctrines. Roman Catholics were not bound to believe as of faith everything written or said by any divine of their Church, how- ever eminent, pious, or enthusiastic. What the Universal Church teaches, as a matter of faith, that they believe, and the Catholic Church never taught the doctrines alluded to by the hon. Member. He talked of ultramontane doctrines. Why, in the Catholic Church there are no doctrines, as of faith, that are not acquiesced in by the whole Church after being submitted for its decision from the Chair of Peter, and therefore, though some writers and doctors may hold ultramontane doctrines as regards the Pope's infallibility, and others may hold the Gallican doctrines on the same subject, which, by the way, are those taught at Maynooth, from the works of De la Hogue and Bossuet, no Catholic is bound to either, for the Church has not accepted, as of faith, one or the other. The next objection is, that those works of Bellarmine and Thomas Aquinas are class books at Maynooth, notwithstanding the particular doctrines to which allusion has been made—as if these eminent doctors, who are great lights of the Church, were to be shut out from the student's perusal, because of a few objectionable passages. He would read to the House a question put on this subject in 1827, by one of the Royal Commissioners to the Professor of Moral Theology at Maynooth, and his answer, as it illustrates the observations he had just made. The Commissioner says—

"We beg you will understand that the object of this question, and of any similar ones that may be put, is merely to suggest to your mind that M. Bailly has not rejected all the doctrines that it would be desirable that he had done in the construction of his work, and certainly not for the purpose of imputing to any living Roman Catholic anything objectionable that it contains."

Answer:—

"As I was observing just now, although a work may contain many things which I should condemn, yet if it has any particular question better treated of than I can find it anywhere else, I should not reject it altogether because the work itself contains exceptionable passages; but I should make use of what is good in it, and reject what is exceptionable."

The next charge is that the Roman Catholics have no regard for the sanction of an oath—as if they have not amply shown that regard by centuries of exclusion from the benefits of the constitution and from the walls of Parliament, because of their scrupulous adherence to that sanction which they consider to be a law of nature. The Professor of Theology at Maynooth makes this observation:—

"In every moral treatise I have seen, written by Catholic divines, they consider the obligation of oaths and promises, in themselves lawful and not contrary to the law of God, as having their sanction from the law of nature antecedently to the Christian or any other revelation."

But it is said that the Catholic Church claims a power of dispensing with oaths—so does the Established Church, as may be seen in Paley's Moral Theology. The Catholic Church treats that when an oath or promise is made under coercion, or is unlawful, or impossible of being kept, or has been obtained by fraud, or been made under error; or where the intention of the person taking the oath is tacitly limited by the law or custom of the country, and yet if kept would transgress that law, or be contrary to that custom—such oaths might be dispensed with. Paley holds nearly the same doctrines, and every one of these grounds of excusing any oath are most admirably set forth, explained, and illustrated in the evidence before the Royal Commission. Archbishop M' Hale, who was a Professor of Moral Theology at Maynooth, in a short sentence explains the case. He says—

"Every duty springs from God, and as God cannot contradict himself by requiring incompatible duties, the Church only interprets the Divine will while it releases him from the obligation of his oath."

But the hon. Member (Mr. Spooner), not content with charging the Roman Catholics with doctrines which they repudiate as not the teaching of the Church, further charges them with being enemies of civil and religious liberty, because, forsooth, the Rambler newspaper chooses to put forth opinions of the most intolerant character. Was there ever so gross an injustice? Let the Roman Catholics be judged by their acts. How have they conducted themselves since they entered that House? Have they not always ranged themselves at the side of civil and religious liberty, and of human progress? Have they not always fought for the extension of parliamentary and municipal franchises? Where will they be found to-morrow on the division for admitting Jews into that House, and at what side will the hon. Member (Mr. Spooner) be found? And they, the Roman Catholics, acting always at the side of human progress, are to be denounced as enemies of civil liberty, because the Rambler newspaper gives expression to absurd opinions on the subject? The hon. Member then attacked the Sacrament of Penance in the Catholic Church, and spoke of the secrecy of the Confessional. Well, all he (Mr. Fagan) would say on that subject was that even supposing that sacrament to be a mere human institution, instead of being, as it is, of Divine origin, it has proved the wholesome check to human failings, and though, of course, considering that it has existed eighteen hundred years, and has been administered to thousands of millions of the human race, it must have been occasionally abused both by priest and penitent, still it has done much for human nature and the Christian religion. If, then, the secrecy of the Confessional was in a single instance and for any purpose violated, that most admirable institution would at once fall to the ground; and nothing so much proves its Divine origin as the fact that in no one instance has that secrecy been ever violated. The order of Jesuits, again, is the constant subject of attack in discussing the Catholic religion. Well, he (Mr. Fagan) had only to state his conviction, after considerable study of the subject, that those attacks are without foundation. He would he content to rely upon the testimony of the historian Ranke, a Protestant writer, to establish a case for the Jesuits. Why is it that for two centuries they have been the constant theme of vituperation on the part of Protestant writers? Because the Jesuits were the order in the Catholic Church that succeeded in repelling the advances of the so-called Reformation, and once again establishing Catholicity throughout the greater part of Europe. This, Ranke admits, and this is the reason the order is so unceasingly maligned. Why is it the Jesuits were disliked by the European sovereigns? Because they were always at the side of the people, and were the first who taught the political doctrine that the people were "the true source of legitimate power." Those Catholic sovereigns in Spain, Portugal, and France had influence with the Sovereign Pontiff, and hence the suppression of the order; but it is well known that that Pontiff afterwards bitterly repented that act of suppression. The last topic of insult to which he would refer is respecting the class from which the Catholic clergy of Ireland is taken. Well, he admitted freely that they belonged, and were proud to belong, to the people—and so were the Apostles. It was the class our Saviour chose to belong to, and to mix with. It is because they belong to the people, and are of the people, that they have succeeded amidst so many difficulties to keep alive the spirit of religion amongst them. It is because they are of the people that they are their best spiritual and temporal friends, and are always with them, protecting their temporal interests, and teaching them unceasingly the truths of religion and the duties of social life. The proudest feather in their cap is that they belong to the people. He would now conclude. In defence of his religion he had been obliged to trespass at unusual length on the attention of the House. He regretted the necessity. He regretted the introduction of such angry topics. He was for peace and union amongst all Her Majesty's subjects of every religion, and he had arrived at a time of life when agitation was not agreeable. But he warned the House that, if the Motion were carried, there would arise in Ireland a storm that would shake the Established Church to its foundations. All he hoped was, that the House would negative the Motion by such an overwhelming majority that, as in the case of Protection, it would be for ever crushed and buried amidst the other ruins of intolerance and monopoly.

was not inclined to follow the course which the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down thought proper to pursue. He certainly was not in the counsels of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, and therefore he was unable to speak of the reasons which induced that hon. Gentleman to bring forward his Motion. This, however, he would say, that if they were those alleged by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Fagan), that he should not have his (Mr. Mills') support; for he could conceive no more unworthy, no more unbecoming, motives than those which had their origin in religious rancour; and in order to show that he did not participate in any such feelings, and that he entirely disclaimed being influenced by them, he wished to address a few words to the House, while he gave his reasons for supporting the Motion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. It was not only because he believed the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church to be theologically false, though he did profoundly entertain that conviction, but because he was thoroughly convinced of the pernicious effects of the Roman Catholic system. He believed it to be a system practically mischievous—to be one which had tended to wither and degrade to a state of moral, social, and financial bankruptcy, every com- munity which had adopted it—therefore he was opposed to the endowment of an institution the object of which was to give permanency to such a system. He was opposed to the grant because he had himself witnessed in America, in various parts of Europe, as well as in Ireland, the ruinous consequences of the Roman Catholic system, morally, socially, and economically, to the community that adopted it. It was not for him or for the House to enter into the question of the doctrinal differences between the Protestant and Roman Catholic Churches. It was not a question who was right and who was wrong—let it be supposed, for the sake of argument, that the Roman Catholic religion was the nearest to the truth. But if he proved that that religion was practically mischievous—if he found that it undermined the principle of individual responsibility—he never could consent to endow an institution out of the funds of the State, which in his conscience he believed to be prejudicial to the well-being of the kingdom. Now, though he was most unwilling to trespass at length upon the attention of the House, still he could not avoid making a momentary reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Cork on the subject of the report of the Commission of 1827. It struck him (Mr. Mills) that that hon. Gentleman might also have drawn attention as well to the report of 1851 from the Visiting Committee. Having lately himself perused that report, he was able to say that the Visitors informed the House that they found everything there, including the dietary of the professors and students, in a most satisfactory state. Nevertheless, he must confess that the report was anything but satisfactory to him (Mr. Mills), whatever it might be to the Visitors. Neither did he believe that it would meet the requirements of the great constituencies of England, who had a right to demand how the large sums of money which were annually voted to the College of Maynooth were expended. The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge had practically a visitatorial power exercised over them. Lately a Commission of Inquiry had been issued to inquire into the state of those Universities; and the public had a right to look for some definite information with respect to the system of education pursued at Maynooth. He did not think that the report before the House was either as full or as satisfactory as the Protestants of England had a right to expect. But he (Mr. Mills) was not so presumptuous as to suppose that any importance would attach to sentiments which rested only on his own authority. He would take the liberty of quoting to the House certain opinions which proceeded neither from Exeter Hall nor from the Protestant Alliance; but it was the language of a right hon. Gentleman a Member of Her Majesty's Government. They were not ill-considered words, hastily pressed forward during the heat of debate; but they were solemn words, appearing in a book which was much noticed, and in which very great talent was evidenced. The work which he alluded to was, The State in its Relations to the Church. Here were the words:—

"The support of the College of Maynooth was originally undertaken by the Protestant Parliament of Ireland, in the anticipation, which has since proved miserably fallacious, that a more loyal class of priests would be produced by a home education than by a foreign one, and that a gradual mitigation in the features of Irish Romanism would be produced when her ministers were no longer familiarised with its condition in continental countries where it remains the religion of the State. Instead of which, it has been found that the facility of education at home has opened the priesthood to a lower and less cultivated class, and one more liable to the influence of secondary motives. It can hardly be denied that this is a well-merited disappointment. If the State gives anything of pecuniary support, it should, in consistency, give everything; unless it is bound in conscience to maintain the national church as God's appointed vehicle of religious truth, it should adopt as its rule the numbers and the needs of the several classes of religionists, and in either respect the claim of the Roman Catholics is infinitely the strongest. In amount this grant is niggardly and unworthy; in principle it is wholly vicious, and it will be a thorn in the side of the state of these countries so long as it is continued. When foreigners express their astonishment at finding that we support in Ireland the Church of a small minority, we may tell them that we support it on the high ground of conscientious necessity for its truth; but how should we blush at the same time to support an institution, whose avowed and legitimate purpose it is constantly to denounce that truth as falsehood? If, indeed, our faith be pledged to the college, by all means let us acquit ourselves of the obligation; but it is monstrous that we should be the voluntary feeders of an establishment which exhibits at once our jealous parsimony, our lax principles, and our erroneous calculations."

Such was the language once used by a right hon. Gentleman, now Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gladstone). Last night the hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland (Sir J. Young) informed the House that Maynooth had been established in order that the Irish ecclesiastical students might not imbibe Ultramontane opinions, and that Sir Robert Feel had experienced as much gratitude from the people of Ireland for his endowment of that college as he had expected. He (Mr. Mills) did not know what was the exact amount of gratitude which that lamented statesman looked forward to receive from the people of Ireland; but this he knew, that he anticipated that after the passing of his measure of endowment, the education of the priesthood of Ireland would be conducted in a spirit less alien to the institutions of this country, He concurred in the statement that the opinions taught at Maynooth, and the system propagated through the instrumentality of that teaching, were such as those who supported the Act of endowment did not expect. As the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed it, they were miser ably disappointed in the results. He would only make a remark in reference to one point which he thought was not sufficiently dwelt upon. They had heard a great deal about religious equality. He considered that this endowment was one not based upon the principle of religious equality-It was a special gift to one class in preference to others. He would express this position in a few lines, extracted from an able address presented to the candidates for the City of London, previous to the last July election, by an influential body of the electors for the City:—

"The endowment of Maynooth is a peculiar favour granted to one religious sect, while it is denied to all others; and granted to that sect only which is regarded by all others with well-grounded apprehension. The churchman, if he desires to educate his son for the ministry, sends him to a university at his own cost. The Dissenter or Wesleyan, proposing to devote a son to the service of God, places him in a college maintained by private funds. The Romanist only has the; education of his son undertaken by the State—a preference which is not only unjust, but regarded by Protestants with alarm, when it is remembered that the body thus distinguished is the only sect which inculcates and practises direct idolatry."

He did not mean to designate the members of the Roman Catholic Church as idolaters: he only meant to say that many members of the Protestant faith considered them to be such, and they felt that they had a right to be consulted as to the manner in which this money was appropriated.

said, the more he heard the more he was convinced that that House was not the proper place for theological or casuistical discussion. If there existed in any Member's mind a persuasion that the teaching at the College of Maynooth was such as to endanger the safety of the State, or to injure the morals of the people, he would ask him to turn to a volume in the library, which had not emanated from the Visitors, hut from a Royal Commission, by whom the professors of the college were examined in the most searching manner; by whom, also, the contents of the textbooks had been examined, and who had laid before the House and the country the result of their inquiries—he meant "The Report of the Royal Commission of 1827." The result of the inquiries of these Gentlemen was a satisfactory contradiction to the allegations so perseveringly made against the system of education pursued at Maynooth. The College of Maynooth with respect to morality and theological teaching was now the same as it was at the period of that inquiry; and so far from shrinking from inquiry, that college challenged the most ample investigation. He begged to ask whether the Standing Orders of the House did not prohibit the use of language which was deeply offensive to the feelings of a large number of the Members of that House? If they did not prohibit it, the time might come when they should be revised and amended, so that language should not be used that was offensive to many Members of the House. He trusted, however, that the tone adopted by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, would not be imitated by other Members who might follow him in the debate. The chief object with which he had risen was to appear in the character of a witness, and to entreat of those who following the hon. Member intended to vote, not for inquiry, but for the abrogation of this grant, to consider well what they were about. He was acquainted with the, feelings of individuals in many parts of Ireland, and he warned the House that the tendencies exhibited by this Motion, and that expressions of opinion couched in the language they had heard on the preceding night, were most materially calculated to assist those who desired to spread in Ireland feelings of disaffection to British institutions. A very misguided man—not long ago a Member of that House—was now expiating in a penal colony his attempt to excite disaffection on the part of the Irish people against the institutions of the country; and he asked any person who knew anything of Ireland if that gentleman had done half as much to excite disaffection as those who adopted the course that had been taken on this occasion by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire? He hoped before the discussion closed they should hear from some one of its Members the sentiments of the late Government, who, during the general election, had profited very largely by the cry raised by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. At the beginning of the last Session the hon. Member had put down in the notice-book, with sybilline brevity, "Maynooth Grant," without any intimation as to his future proceedings; and subsequently he deemed it more prudent to move merely for an inquiry—but he had thought proper to adopt a different mode of proceeding on the present occasion. He (Mr. J. Ball) would now allude to a topic which had been referred to by the hon. Gentleman who had last addressed the House, and he was the more desirous to do so, because the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to whom he had referred, was not present. It was only necessary to appeal to the generous feelings of the House to obtain its attention, while he reminded them that that right hon. Gentleman, with a refined, and, as many thought, an exaggerated sense of honour, had atoned for his change of opinion as to anything that he thought erroneous in the passage read by the hon. Member, by the abdication of high office, not because he still retained those opinions, and was unable to carry them out in office, but simply to preserve his personal honour perfectly pure and untainted by the slightest appearance of being influenced by personal considerations in the vote which he gave in 1845. Circumstances had led him (Mr. J. Ball) to travel through a remote part of Ireland about the time the measure was introduced by Sir Robert Peel in 1845. He happened to fall into company he had not seen before, and which included many Roman Catholic priests. He had heard their free and unchecked expression of opinion, and he was struck by an observation that was made by one clergyman, who said they now, for the first time, understood the meaning of the term paternal Government; hitherto, he said, the friendly measures for which they were called upon to be thankful, merely extended to the relaxation of severity, the mitigation of a penal Act, or the removal of something that was grossly unjust, but that then, for the first time, a measure had been proposed by the British Government which appeared to be dictated solely by just and friendly motives, not reluctantly forced from it by political considerations, but influenced solely by a regard for the welfare and just claims of the majority of the Irish people. He (Mr. Ball) did not think it natural or reasonable that the feelings of a people towards its governors should permanently be influenced by gratitude for a solitary act of legislation; but it was a mistake to suppose that deep gratitude was not felt for that measure, or that deep gratitude would not be felt if they followed up in the same spirit that system of legislation.

Sir, I am unwilling to give a silent vote on the present occasion, because I know the interest which this question excites in the public mind, and the more so, as I am sorry to say, that I am unable to vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner), which goes to the immediate abrogation of the grant to the College of Maynooth—a course which I cannot think consistent with the honour and good faith of the Legislature. I need not have occupied the attention of the House further if it had not been for certain expressions which fell from the right hon. the Secretary for Ireland, in which he seemed to assert that all the violence, the bloodshed, and the tumult which occurred during the late elections in Ireland were to be laid to the charge of those gentlemen who ventured into a contest, without what he chooses to think sufficient chances of success. It seems, Sir, that he considers that every candidate for an Irish borough or an Irish county must have the exequator of the priest before he ventures to come forward. I dare say that this is very agreeable to those Gentlemen who have received that exequator, and are now by virtue of it sitting as Members of the Legislature; but I protest against such a doctrine as a gross infringement of the rights of Irish electors and Irish candidates. Further, when the right hon. Secretary detailed the evils, to guard against which the College of Maynooth was founded, the dangers of Ultramontanism, of foreign influence and intrigue, of disaffection to the Government of this country, I declare that for a moment I thought he was describing the actual state of Ireland. Sir, it is my firm belief that the College of Maynooth has been in every respect an utter and complete failure; but it must be recollected that the grant to the College has now existed for half a century; that it has been voted by successive Parliaments during that time; and that within the last few years it has been solemnly ratified by the Crown and Legislature of the Kingdom; and therefore I must repeat that the withdrawal of the grant would be injurious to the good faith and dignity of the Legislature, without a fair, full, and searching investigation into all matters connected with the College of Maynooth; and I must therefore with great regret refuse my support to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire.

said, he was glad to find that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had not taken the same course as that of last year, by moving for inquiry, because to men holding such opinions as the hon. Member, such an inquiry as he had then sought for would be useless. It was far better that he and his Friends should propose at once the extinction of the grant. If they had an inquiry, he believed that the result of the investigation would merely show that the College had followed the same system of education since 1845, which it had acted upon for years before. Beyond that he believed the Committee would afford no new evidence upon which they could found a Motion for the abrogation of the grant. He was glad to find that the hon. Member had repented of his moderation and liberality of last year, and had founded his present Motion upon the old, antiquated, familiar ground of religious intolerance. They knew all those arguments well; but he must say he had never heard them put forward more broadly and unmistakeably than last night by the hon. Member. He could not help wishing, as he listened, for something like a statute of limitations applied to their discussions, which, after a certain lapse of years, might bar the arguments of Lord George Gordon and the No-Popery men of 1780. Yet he was not sorry that the hon. Member had exhibited his proposal in all its naked deformity, because he felt it would be so repulsive to the House as to ensure its rejection. He had no fear then for the result of the vote upon the present occasion. Yet he could not refrain from expressing his regret at the state in which the question now stood, and the attitude in which the friends of religious equality now found themselves placed. It appeared as if a great gulf separated them from the year 1845; for what was the state of things in Ireland in 1845, compared with former years? After many failures which this great cause had undergone for the last half century—after its break-down in 1801 under the master hand of Mr. Pitt, and again in later years under the powerful Ministry of Earl Grey, the time did seem to come in 1845 when a settlement of this great question was approaching. Who could forget the great debates of 1845? Who could forget the speech of the late Sir Robert Peel on that occasion?—a speech which, as an hon. Friend of his had told them, was read with gratitude by poor Irishmen in the wilds of Connaught? Who either could forget the language of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, and the leaders of the Liberal party of that day? On that occasion Earl Grey, and others, told the House that they did not receive the increased grant to the College of Maynooth as a final settlement of this great question, and they thought that the establishment of religious equality in Ireland could not be long deferred. But he could not forget the lamentable events that separated us from the year 1845. There was first the insurrectionary movement in Ireland, when the genius and ardour of young Irishmen like Meagher and Davis were worse than wasted in the vain pursuit of separate nationality. Who could forget the famine that followed those events, and the destruction of a large portion of the population? Then came that ecclesiastical movement which was called the Papal aggression. He had always deplored that movement. He condemned the legislation which followed it, believing that the rude hand of the State only made matters worse; but there could be no doubt that it had provoked a reaction in this country which made the settlement of the ecclesiastical question in Ireland more difficult and distant than ever. Those lamentable occurrences had intervened, and the question was now in a different position from what it was in 1845. He did not, under these circumstances, blame the Government for not undertaking at this moment the task of remodelling the ecclesiastical establishment of Ireland. He did not expect impossibilities from Government, nor did he think it was the duty of any Irish Liberal to put himself in hostility to them. It was his belief that the noble Lord and the Government were ready, as far as it was possible, to govern Ireland on the principle of equality, as between classes and creeds; and he was confirmed in that opinion by the speech which had been delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland (Sir John Young). He thought that speech gave such a direct, honest, unequivocal negative to the Motion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, and at the same time was couched in such friendly terms towards the Roman Catholics, that the right hon. Gentleman deserved their best thanks. But all Liberal statesmen and politicians should remember the enormous difficulties that any Government had to encounter in carrying out the principle of religious equality in Ireland, and the greatest of these lay in the honest but unhappy prejudices of the people of England and Scotland. It was their duty, at all events, not to appeal to those prejudices, or aggravate them for party purposes. He hoped they would have no more Ecclesiastical Titles Bills, or no more legislation tending to confirm the prejudices of Protestants against Roman Catholics. He felt, for his part, the difficulty of governing a Catholic country through a Protestant Parliament No one respected more than he did the Protestant feeling of the people of this country; he should be sorry to see it lessened or lowered within its proper sphere. But let it not be blindly brought to bear upon the Roman Catholics of Ireland. Let Englishmen and Scotchmen reflect sometimes how Ireland, if Ireland were an independent country, would be likely to settle her Church question, and how they would feel themselves, if they were in the position of the Roman Catholics there. Religious zeal and Protestant zeal might be a good thing; but a sense of justice was better. He was himself a Protestant, but he could distinguish between the Protestantism of the heart and the Protestantism of the benches opposite—he could distinguish between the personal religion which animated the man, and that party religion which dictated the vote. The fool of party religion would oftentimes rush in where the angel of personal religion would fear to tread. He called upon all good Protestants to reject the Motion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, and to join in promoting the great cause of religious equality.

Sir, I can promise the House that I will not enter on any of those extraneous topics to which hon. Gentlemen who have preceded me have adverted, and into which we are generally drawn by a discussion on the subject of Maynooth. I think there exists, on both sides the House, a very general desire that this debate should be concluded to- day; and, if possible, that, being concluded, it should not again be resumed. In that desire I concur—not only on account of the state of the public business, always pressing at this time of the year—not merely because, in the course of repeated discussions, all that is really original and valuable, whether in the way of opinion, of argument, or of fact, has long since been elicited, leaving behind little except matter for theological disputes and mutual recrimination—but because every day and hour that this question remains open—the opinion of the House not expressed, its decision not anticipated with certainty, for though we may predict with some confidence what that decision will be, yet it is impossible that out of doors any similar confidence of expectation should prevail—tends to embitter the animosity with which this question is unhappily regarded in Ireland, and to keep open that sore which it was the object of the settlement of 1845 to heal and to close up for ever. And feeling thus, I should not have risen were it not that it seemed undesirable that this debate should close without an expression of opinion from any single Member of the late Government. And in stating the reasons for which I find it impossible to support the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire, I must in the first place briefly glance at the circumstances under which this grant originated. I must ask the House to recollect when, where, and with whom it had its origin. It was first made at a time when questions of religious difference were not dealt with in the comparatively calm and temperate spirit which characterises the present day; at a time when the penal laws were still unrepealed, when Protestant ascendancy was the watchword of a powerful party in the State, and when Protestantism was too often synonymous with intolerance. Neither did it originate with a Roman Catholic Legislature, representing a Roman Catholic country, but with the exclusively Protestant Parliament of Ireland, an assembly in which no Roman Catholic could so much as take his seat. It originated in Ireland—then, at least, distinguished beyond all other countries of Europe for the height to which religious intolerance was carried—and it originated on the spot, in a Legislature whose local knowledge peculiarly qualified its Members to judge as to the manner in which the money granted was likely to be applied. Trace the history of the Maynooth endowment, and you find it at once adopted and sanctioned by the Imperial Parliament; adopted, moreover, if I mistake not, without opposition from any quarter. Not only was it continued by the Parliament of this country, but within a few years' time it was actually increased from 8,000l. to 13,000l.; and though the latter sum was only voted for a single year—1808—yet from that time forth, down to 1845, the annual grant was continued at 9,000l., being 1,000l. more than the sum originally voted; and this, be it remembered, was done in the very days to which we are accustomed to look back as those during which the Government of this country was carried on, on principles the least tolerant, and, in a political sense, the most exclusively Protestant. I mention the fact of that slight increase, trifling though it appears, because it seems to prove, indisputably, that in dealing with this grant the Legislature did not act in the spirit of a party tied down to the strict and literal performance of a contract—did not content itself with merely acting up to the letter of the arrangement it had entered into—but showed itself willing to go beyond what it had promised, and to deal with the whole question in a large and generous spirit. It has been sometimes objected that during the greater part of the last half century—from 1801 to 1845—the grant was merely an annual one, and its renewal beyond the period of a year in no way guaranteed by Parliament. That is certainly the case; but it makes my argument stronger. If, at the time of the Union, or soon after, the grant had been placed at once on the footing on which it was afterwards placed by Sir Robert Peel's measure in 1845, I could very well understand how it might be said, that whether the endowment of Maynooth were an act in itself right or wrong, politic or impolitic, it was the work of only a single Parliament and a single Ministry; and that, though subsequent Parliaments and Cabinets had not chosen to repeal the grant, they had been actuated, in abstaining from so doing, not by any approval of what their predecessors had done, but solely by a desire to maintain inviolate the public faith. I can understand, in such a case as I have supposed, how that language might have been held; but with regard to an annual grant, voted for one year only, and regularly renewed, from 1801 to 1845, without the interruption of a single year, it seems impossible to deny that we have a distinct approval of the principle on which it was originally framed, repeated, and confirmed by every Minister and every Parliament, without exception, before whom this question came during a period of forty-four years. I come now to the measure of 1845. What was the object which Sir Robert Peel proposed to himself when dealing with the question in 1845? Evidently it was this: Sir Robert Peel, in his proposal to place the endowment of Maynooth on a new footing, was influenced by an apprehension, that—although no ill consequences had actually arisen from the yearly renewal of the grant by Parliament—still that such consequences might arise, and that, to guard against them, it was desirable to remove this question from the list of those questions that were open to annual discussion in Parliament, by placing Maynooth College in a position of permanent independence. There can be no doubt but that was the view taken by Sir Robert Peel: there can be no doubt but that he regarded the Act of 1845 as a permanent settlement, and that by Parliament generally it was regarded in the same light. As such it was proposed, as such it was debated and opposed, and, as such, it was finally carried through both Houses. What, therefore, I want to impress on the minds of my hon. Friends is this, that, however much they may desire it, they cannot now replace this question on the footing on which it stood previous to 1845. There is certainly one case, but one only, in which the settlement of 1845 ceases to be binding; and that is, if you assume that in the eight years which have elapsed since 1845, circumstances have altered in so great a degree relatively to the College of Maynooth, that the Maynooth of 1853 cannot be considered as identical with the Maynooth of 1845, to which the endowment was granted. On any other assumption, it appears to me that the Act of 1845 is binding, and, indeed, irreversible. I believe I do not stand alone in this view: I believe there are many hon. Members in this House who will not consent to a repeal of the grant now, although they voted against it in 1845, because they feel that Parliament stands pledged to its maintenance. I may be told, undoubtedly, that there are other Members who take the converse view of this question, and who, though supporters of the grant in 1845, are now prepared to oppose it. They do not consider that Parliament is pledged to its continuance; they regard the grant as having been originally made in the nature of an experiment: they think that as an experiment it has failed, and therefore desire that it should be discontinued. Well, that is a clear, consistent, intelligible view: but, in order to entertain it you must first assume, not merely that the grant was not guaranteed as permanent, but also that it was granted conditionally. Now, I am unable to find any condition expressed or implied, either in the speech of Sir Robert Peel when introducing the measure, or in any other speech delivered on the subject in either House of Parliament. On the contrary, it seems clear that the intention of the Legislature in 1845 was, first, that the grant should be unconditional; and, secondly, that it should be permanent. I now come to the Amendment on the original Motion, proposed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, in which the House is asked to express a general approval of the voluntary principle. I shall not enter upon any inquiry into the abstract merits of the voluntary principle. I believe that it is impossible to lay down a principle in such matters which shall be applicable to all times and to all societies. I believe that there are certain circumstances, and certain conditions of society, in which the voluntary principle would be not only the best, but practically the only one, on which it would be possible to legislate. If, for example, we were legislating for a new country, founding a new society, no doubt it would be the wisest plan to place the government of such a country in a position of neutrality as regards all religions, leaving each to maintain itself, and giving to none an endowment out of public funds. But how is that principle to be applied to the state of things now existing in England? What is meant by the hon. Member asking us to assent to a declaration that no public funds shall be applied to any religious purpose? Is that declaration to apply to every kind of endowment? Is it intended to be retrospective, or prospective only? Is it intended to apply only to votes annually granted, or to grants for a longer period? or does it proceed on the assumption that all ecclesiastical property is the property of the State; and does it mean that all endowments, whether in the shape of land or money, now devoted to religious purposes, shall be resumed by the State? In the latter case, the proposition which we are called upon to consider thus incidentally, involves the secularisation of the whole ecclesiastical property of the country. Now I do not think that it is a question on which it would be wise or convenient to enter, when it is brought forward merely by way of supplement to another debate. It is far too wide, far too general, far too important, for any such incidental discussion. But if it be intended to leave untouched the great bulk of ecclesiastical property, and repeal only such grants as are either voted annually, or derived directly from the State, then I must say that such an application of the voluntary principle seems partial and unfair; because, in the majority of cases, the object of such grants is to place the members of other sects in a position less unfavourable, when compared to the position of the Established Church, than that which they would otherwise occupy. With regard to the propriety of instituting an inquiry into the education given at Maynooth, I certainly should not have opposed my hon. Friend if he had limited his Motion, as he did last year, to a demand for inquiry; for I cannot conceive that Parliament should not have the right of ascertaining in what way money voted by it has been expended, and whether that money has been appropriated to the purposes for which it was voted. The acceptance by any religious body, of endowment from the State, implies its willingness to submit in return to a certain degree of supervision and control: and since Government has taken upon itself to inquire into the condition of the English Universities, I cannot imagine that any other religious or educational body, receiving public money, can be entitled to claim exemption from inquiry as a matter of right. It has been stated that the Maynooth grant is abused. That may or may not be the case: it is only by an inquiry that the truth can be ascertained; but if, as the result of such inquiry, it be proved that the education given at Maynooth is not all that it ought to be, still it should be distinctly understood, and laid down as a principle, that be the existing abuses what they may, you are not on that account to repeal the grant, although you may take measures to secure its not being abused. That is one of the two provisions which seem necessary, in order to render the inquiry a fair one; and the other is, that the inquiry should be conducted, at least in part, by members of the Roman Catholic religion. If an inquiry be proposed on the above terms, I think hon. Gentlemen who are interested in Ireland, and espe- cially who are interested in Maynooth, will be acting unwisely if they resist the proposition. They at least will not deny that there prevails in this country some degree of prejudice against the institution which they support; and to destroy that prejudice, and convert animosity into friendly feeling, only one means will he effected. Let them show that they do not fear, hut rather court, publicity: that they have nothing to conceal, nothing to be ashamed of; and they may rely upon it, if they take that course, that though the public of England may not be free from prejudices, still that the spirit of fair play will in the end prevail, and impartial justice will be done. With regard to the present Motion, I, for one, must oppose it: I believe that it will be rejected by a large majority of this House; and rejoicing, as I do, to think that there is no danger of the settlement of 1845 being disturbed, I rejoice the more on this account, that I believe there can be no security for the Established Protestant Church of Ireland, unless you deal in a fair and liberal spirit with the claims of the Irish Roman Catholic population.

said, as there was a general wish among hon. Members at once to divide, he was unwilling to intrude himself on the notice of the House; but he was equally unwilling to allow this question to go to a division without expressing his views in reference to it. His opinion was decidedly against both the Amendment and the original Resolution. The original Resolution was one which no man entertaining the opinions which he entertained could for a moment support; and he considered the Amendment as one which was equally objectionable to every Gentleman who entertained opinions similar to his own on this subject. He regarded, indeed, the Amendment as the original Resolution under a different shape. He had nothing whatever to complain of in the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Scholefield); it was extremely liberal, fair, and candid; but it was impossible for him (Mr. Lucas), or hon. Members who acted with him in that House, to conceal from themselves the fact that the Amendment moved by the hon. Member was one, a great part of the support of which would be dictated by the same feelings of religious bigotry and opposition to Catholicity as those which animated the supporters of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner). ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen might cry "Oh, oh!" but it was impossible to deny that that was a fact. It was impossible for any one who had paid attention to the elections which followed on the recent dissolution of Parliament to misunderstand this fact, that the liberal constituencies in the boroughs and large cities and towns in England were just as much opposed to there being fair play towards Catholicity, just as much hostile to the Catholic Church and faith, and just as much determined to refuse justice to the Catholics of Ireland and Great Britain, as those constituencies which supported the views of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire; and the fact was, that the scope and purpose of the Amendment was to avoid, under a plausible but delusive appearance, giving full and open expression to that feeling of bigotry. He had been taking a little pains to look through that interesting register of Parliamentary opinions, Dod's Parliamentary Companion, and by some accident he had stumbled upon the name of Mr. Kinnaird, the hon. Member for Perth, and in reference to that hon. Member he read "a Liberal; opposed to the Maynooth grant." He was in hopes that the hon. and Liberal Member for Perth, whom they had heard deliver himself with so much emphasis the other night on a foreign question of religious freedom, would have delivered himself with equal emphasis on the present occasion, and would have favoured the House with his opinions on domestic religious freedom, and would have shown that he was not a gentleman who would raise a great outcry in favour of those who did not immediately concern or call for the attention of that House, while at the same time he had nothing to say to his fellow-citizens at home. But he (Mr. Lucas) took that hon. Member as an example of a very considerable class of Members on the opposite side of the House, whose votes were to be caught by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham. He would point out very briefly in what way he thought the Amendment objectionable. An appeal had been made to him and the other Catholic Members to the effect that the Catholics ought to be too proud to accept this beggarly grant, as it was called, of 30,000l. a year. Let hon. Members put that question fairly and justly, and still he would go as far as any man in rejecting this beggarly grant, which raised against them (the Catholics) the question of gratitude, which he, for one, was not disposed to pay, by robbing them of the immense debt of justice which he, for one, was determined always to claim. If the hon. Member for Birmingham would alter the form of his Motion, so as to do justice—and not merely justice to the Catholics, but to the very principle which he himself (Mr. Scholefield) advocated, and a great many hon. Members about, they would support the hon. Member's Amendment, and would do their best to carry it in the House on that and all other occasions. What was the hon. Member's principle? It was that of the absence of religious endowments. They were now considering the question as it affected Ireland. He (Mr. Lucas) was not asking the House to adopt the principle of voluntaryism in England against the Established Church in England. That was a distinct question arising on its own merits, with which he should not then attempt to meddle. But he took the case of Ireland as an isolated case of practical injustice, and, in answer to the appeal made to him from the other side of the House in favour of the voluntary principle, he said that, although he did not agree with the abstract views of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, who advocated the Amendment on the ground of voluntaryism, yet he was prepared to adopt this practical conclusion if they would put that practical conclusion in issue. The Amendment did not even deal with the grant made in the shape of the Regium Donum to the Presbyterians in Ireland. If that Resolution was carried, they would take away the endowment of Maynooth, and leave standing the endowment granted out of the Estimates of every year in favour of the Presbyterians of Ulster. Therefore that Resolution did not in any way put fairly in issue the principle which the hon. Member wished to recommend to the House. The hon. Member ought to put that principle in issue by including some form of words which would declare that all religious endowments in Ireland, of whatever kind—whether the endowment of Maynooth, the Regium Donum of the Presbyterians, or that most flagrant and flagitious of all endowments, the endowment—not by the voluntary grant of the State out of the funds of the State—but the endowment conceived in fraud and brought forth in robbery—the endowment of the Established Church of Ireland, which plundered the Catholics of their own funds, and gave them to a minority of the people. An appeal had been made to them (the Catholics), and it was an appeal ad misericordiam—that they would not be so stony-hearted, or so hard, as to ask Protestants to vote their Protestant money for the support of a religion to which they had a conscientious objection; and yet the Protestants took not their own, but the Catholic funds, and actually compelled and dragooned, and coerced the Catholics to make over the funds accumulated by their religious and Catholic forefathers for the endowment of the religion which they professed. They took all those funds from the Catholics, and they had no scruple of conscience, no reciprocity of toleration, hut they went on the vulgar principle of taking all they could get, and of keeping all they got when once they got it. That principle would not do; it would not succeed; it must break down. What was the real state of the question now before the House? Nobody believed that the Resolution of the hon. Member (Mr. Spooner) would be adopted by that House. Everybody knew it would be outvoted. It was, in fact, a Resolution which was supported only by what he (Mr. Lucas) might call the tail of two parties in the House without the assent of the heads of either. There was no man on either side of the House who had ever been connected with the administration of the affairs of this country—no man who had ever been a Cabinet Minister, or hoped to be one—who would ever commit himself to the insane proposition that the House was to maintain such an iniquity as the Established Church in Ireland, and that it was to take away from the Catholics that poor paltry contribution which it had made not so much in a spirit of liberality and kindness, as in a spirit of State policy. The greater part of the hon. Member's (Mr. Spooner's) speech depended on what toot place at the last election. The hon. Member claimed inquiry into Maynooth in consequence of the scenes that took place at the last election; because, he argued, those things proved that the object in making the grant had failed. He (Mr. Lucas) admitted that in one sense the object of Sir Robert Peel's policy with regard to Maynooth had failed; for it was part of the avowed object of that policy that that House was to have done for ever with the annual discussions about Maynooth, and that they should not waste two valuable nights every Session with abusing one another about religious topics, and in enkindling mutual religious hostilities which could not but exist out of doors, but which it was not for the interest of the State or the Empire that they should be cultivated in that House. He had always understood it to be the policy of Sir Robert Peel in this matter that that House should cease to send forth the "message" they had so often sent before—that the feeling of intolerance still existed in that House, and that religious freedom was insecure, because a large majority in that House wished to give expression through the Legislature to those feelings of intolerance, and to strike a fatal blow at the peace and tranquillity of the empire. That must be the result if the Resolution passed. He did not think he ought to occupy the time of the House by answering objections so offensively made by the hon. Member (Mr. Spooner) against everything that was most sacred and holy in his (Mr. Lucas's) estimation. He certainly thought he should be treating those imputations with a respect which they did not deserve, if he were to meet them with anything like serious refutation. To hear the hon. Member, the House might think that the Catholic religion had dropped down from the moon only last year; that it was some new subject which occupied the thoughts of the educated gentlemen of England; that they had to learn for the first time what was the religion of their forefathers; and that we of the nineteenth century had yet to go back for some centuries to know what was the religion which prevailed in this country for so many generations, which laid out the foundations, and built up the fabric of the constitution which was now their boast, and every institution on which they prided themselves, and which created that political inheritance which they enjoyed, whilst they blasphemed the creators of it. Neither on this nor on any other occasion would he condescend in that House to vindicate the Church of which it was his greatest pride to be an obedient child, against the aspersions brought against it by that hon. Gentleman. If ground were laid for inquiry by bringing in a bonâ fide distinct charge against the endowment of Maynooth—if evidence were adduced establishing a primâ facie case that the funds were badly applied, that there wore abuses of any kind in the administration of these funds, or that any particular immorality prevailed in the institution—if any tangible accusation were brought against Maynooth, then he and every hon. Member who acted with him should be prepared to meet an inquiry, and to assist it by every means in their power. But that was not the fact. No case had been made out against Maynooth, nor the pretence of a case. The only case made out was a case against the Catholic religion; and the question the House of Commons was now asked to try was, not whether Maynooth was a good Catholic college, but whether the Catholic religion was of such a nature that no Catholic college, without being false to the character of Catholicity itself, should have any endowment whatever. That was the case which had been made out; and to a case made out in that way, resting on such grounds, depending on the truth of such propositions as had been advanced by the hon. Member (Mr. Spooner), he should never give his assent, but his most determined opposition. He understood that by continuing his observations he should stand in the way of a division; he would, therefore, though he had other remarks which he intended to have made, yield to the expressed wish of the House.

I have no objection that we should go at once to a division, if that is the wish of the House; but, Sir, my constituents of every rank and degree have urged me to vote against the continuation of this grant. But I know I won't. [Laughter.] I said, "No—I refuse to do an act of injustice." I said, "Let there be a case made out—let there be a Motion made for inquiry, and into that inquiry I will go." But my constituents, like the rest of the people of England, are not a pack of blind bigots, who do not know what they are talking about. That which has raised their indignation is this, the address of a gentleman called Paul Cullen, who writes, "The venerated hierarchy and clergy, in the fulfilment of their duties, will inculcate the strict and religious duty of selecting as representatives of the people those men who are best fitted to support in the Imperial Parliament our religious rights." Now we go back to the master of Paul Cullen, and see what he calls religious rights. The Pope says, "We have taken this principle for basis, that the Catholic religion, with all its rites, ought to be exclusively dominant, in such sort that every other worship shall be banished and interdicted." Now, Englishmen may be called coarse, but they are honest and plain spoken; and I say, with those words, to talk about religious equality is a gross fraud and imposture. I have not time to go into all the question; but about this new religion, I could, if I had time, prove that now, for the first time in the history of the Church, the doctrines of the Jesuits are alone authorised. Do not shake your heads, Gentlemen. I will give my authority; I have got all the extracts; those pocket pistols, as they are sometimes termed. [An Hon. MEMBER: Go on!] I won't go on, because I know very well the nature of the adversaries with whom I have to deal, and I will not stir one step without making good my ground as I go. I know the cleverness of the Jesuits; I know they beat the Popes; and I am not going to suppose that I can beat them as they have beaten the Popes. But I will give you a sample of them. Bellarmine—no obsolete authority among them—says Pontifex potest legem Dei mutari. That sentiment astonished the King of France; and the King of France, after a good deal of trouble, got the Pope to put this among the propositiones damnatœ. How did they get over that difficulty, do you suppose? By putting in a word or two—Pontifex non sine justa causa. There are a dozen instances; would you like any more? ["Go on!"] I will oblige the hon. Gentleman by giving one—though I am sure it is not at all my wish. For instance, you must know these Jesuits have a sort of falsehood called mental reservation. Innocent XI., a very good Pope, tried to put down some of those things, and among the rest this "mental reservation." But how did they get over him? By saying they wanted pure mental reservation—so pure, indeed, that nobody was to understand it. [Mr. BOWYER: Where is that to be found?] You will find it, Sir, in the fifth volume of Liguori, page 268. Then, again, they encourage assassination, as we all know. That was why the King of Spain banished them from his dominions. The answer they put in to that charge was, that they only were to be accounted assassins who committed assassination for a temporal consideration. So, if you are not paid for a murder, it is not assassination. But this is not the point I wished to bring before you. I wanted to bring specially before you what they think with regard to witnesses and false oaths. That is the point, and it is upon that point that it behoves the Government to institute inquiry, because it would be impossible to maintain that there is any means of carrying on the institutions of freemen whilst such doctrines are taught. [Mr. BOWYER: Where do you find that? In the fourth volume of Liguori, page 364. You will see there that a witness may say he does not know that which he does know. I might go through the whole system of this falsehood. I want to treat it, not as a religious question; it is a question of the conspiracy of these men against the rights of mankind; and it behoves every country in Europe to combine to expose and refute such a system.

then attempted to address the House; but the cries for a division being great, the noble Lord moved that the House do adjourn.

said, he could not suffer the discussion to close without protesting in the strongest manner against the observations with respect to the Established Church used by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Lucas), who could not have taken his seat in that House unless under the solemn obligation of an oath to do nothing to weaken or destroy the settlement of the Church Establishment. Language more bitter, more insulting, or more unlike anything which the hon. Member himself would tolerate to be used in reference to his own Church, he (Sir R. H. Inglis) had never heard.

said, that with respect to what had fallen from the hon. Baronet, all he could say was that it was not his intention to use one expression insulting to any hon. Gentleman on account of the religion or Church to which he belonged. He had spoken of the Establishment solely in its character as a political institution, not wishing to express any opinion on its character as a Church; and he should have deemed himself open to great reprobation if he had used any observations about the Church to which the hon. Baronet belonged such as those uttered the other night, without any remonstrance being made, by the Member for North Warwickshire against the Catholic Church and its sacraments.

thought it due to himself to take some notice of what had fallen from the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Lucas). That hon. Member had said, that if the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Birmingham had included all religious endowments, that of the Established Church in Ireland among the rest, he and those who acted with him—meaning, he (Mr. Serjeant Shee) presumed, all or many of the Catholic Members of the House—would have voted for it. Now, he (Mr. Serjeant Shee) meant to say that, so long as the oaths now taken at the table by Members constituted part of the law of the land, he would not vote for such an Amendment. On many subjects, doubtless, he entirely agreed in opinion with the hon. Member for Meath, but not on that subject; and he could not allow the debate to close without expressing distinctly his sentiments on the point.

, amid loud cries for a division, emphatically denied that in voting for the Amendment he was influenced by religious bigotry.