said, he desired to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty Whether the attention of the Board has been directed to the quality of the wine supplied to the Navy for medical purposes, it having been described as unfit for the use of invalids, although exempt from duty. And, also, whether he can give an assurance to the House that the drugs supplied to the Navy are not of an equally adulterated and deleterious description?

said, that drugs for the use of the navy were supplied from Apothecaries' Hall, and therefore were of the best of their kind. With regard to the wine no complaint had been made from any of the ships. But the statement of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other night caused some little sensation at the Admiralty, and therefore they were making inquiries into the subject.

said, he would beg leave to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Whether preparations have not been made for placing the French army in Northern Italy in a state ready for immediate active service, and a Military Intendant and Staff sent to Tuscany to prepare for the arrival of French troops there; and whether such preparations are made with the intention of occupying any part of Central Italy by French troops, in order to "protect the voting" should fresh elections be resorted to, or for any other ostensible object?

said, the Government had heard of no preparations for putting the French army in Northern Italy in a state of active preparation, except that the number of men in the cavalry having been described as not being sufficient to take care of the horses, an additional number were sent for the purpose. With regard to a military staff and intendant being sent into Tuscany as reliefs, all he could say was, that he heard constantly from Her Majesty's Minister at Florence, and no rumour of any such arrival had reached him or was mentioned in his despatches, nor were any preparations being made to protect the voting. His answer generally was that no such preparations were in progress as those referred to by the hon. Gentleman.

said, he rose to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, in the Treaty of Commerce with France, the English or the French is understood to be the correct version of Article 10,"the privileges, favours, or advantages granted to national vessels" being stated in the English version to be granted "generally," while in the French they are stated to be granted"sans exception."

said, he believed it was understood that the French and English versions of Article 10 of the Commercial Treaty with France had exactly the same meaning. The precise words perhaps might not appear to correspond, but the general meaning of the two versions was exactly the same. He begged to assure the hon. Member that neither by the English nor by the French version would the privileges of the freemen of Liverpool, as regarded their exemption from certain local dues, be affected.

said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland if it is the intention of the Government to introduce a measure to consolidate and amend the law relating to the Lunatic Poor in Ireland?

said, that a Bill which he had in contemplation on this subject would not be proceeded with, and there was no intention on the part of the Government to bring in any further measure.

said, he would beg leave to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether application has been made on behalf of a London Joint Stock Company, called "The Madras Irrigation and Canal Company," for the guarantee of a minimum interest of 5 per cent per annum, payable from the Indian revenues, upon a capital of two millions sterling, for the purpose of enabling the said company to prosecute certain irrigation schemes in Cuttack and in other districts of Orissa; and whether it is intended to accede to this proposal?

said, that an application had been addressed to the Secretary of State for India in Council for the guarantee in question, but the application was refused; and, he might add, that it was not the intention of the Secretary of State for India to accede to any such proposal.

said, he would have most willingly withdrawn from the discussion of a subject which he had so often brought under the notice of the House, but that he had been induced from the first to bring it forward by the thorough conviction that the continuance of the Grant to Maynooth was a national sin, and would at some time or another produce terrible consequences to this country. He retained the opinion that it was a great national sin, and he believed that it was already bringing forth its fruits. No one who read the papers could fail to see that the priests educated at that College had been most mischievous in exciting feelings of disloyalty towards Her Gracious Majesty and hatred to the Protestant Reformed Church. He hoped that he should not have to detain the House long. In fact, he found from the state of his eyes, that it would be impossible for him to do so. He had often experienced the indulgence of the House, but he had never more need of it than on the present occasion. The education at Maynooth was now producing its fruits, and he would first of all show this by comparing the language held by the Roman Catholic Bishops in 1792, when they were humble suppliants for relief, with that held at a mooting which lately took place in Dublin by Dr. Paul Cullen, who had been unconstitutionally recognized in that fantastical and farcical inquiry called Lord Harrowhy's Commission, by the illegal title of the "Delegate Apostolic" in Ireland. In a petition presented to the Irish Parliament in 1792 the Irish Bishops held this language:—

"We solemnly and conscientiously declare that we are satisfied with the present state of ecclesiastical polity; we acquiesce in the establishment of the National Church; we neither repine at its possessions nor its dignities, and we are ready on this point to give every satisfaction in our power."

In another petition, 1808, they said—

"Your petitioners most solemnly declare that they do not seek in any way to encroach upon the rights, privileges, possessions, or revenue appertaining to the Bishops and Clergy of the Protestant Church."

Contrast this with the language held by Dr. Cullen at a meeting in Dublin not long ago, which was received with "loud cheers."

"No country," said he, "presents such a nuisance as the Church establishment in Ireland, with its mitred dignitaries, its universities, schools, and its enormous wealth derived from the confiscation of the property of our ancestors—a nuisance which, if it existed in any other country, would be daily denounced by all shades of the British press."

These were the abominable opinions which the British people were compelled to pay for teaching. The next point which be wished to submit to the House was a declaration of Dr. Moriarty, President of Allhallows, Drumcondra, who was one of the witnesses before the late Commission, on the subject of the oath of allegiance. He had often made a charge against Maynooth that the doctrine was taught there that oaths must be dealt with in an equivocal way; that there was no sin in swearing one thing and meaning another. The quotations which he had given to prove that had never been refuted or denied; and he now made this charge, that doctrines were taught there completely subversive of the oath of allegiance. In his examination Dr. Moriarty was asked, "Are there no circumstances under which the Pope could release subjects from their oath of allegiance?" His answer was boldly, "Most emphatically I say none;" and then came his Jesuitical "but," which was this,—"but there are certain cases where the allegiance of subjects ceases, and where the Government of the country may be justly overthrown, and I consider the Pope is the best and fittest authority to decide in many cases whether such circumstances have arisen." The power of the Pope was represented as merely declaratory, and not involving the allegiance of the subject. In answer, however, to the next question, whether the Pope would not thus have removed the obligation from the conscience, the answer given was, "he could declare it removed." He confessed that, not being himself a Jesuit, and not having received his education in a Jesuit's College, he was unable to realize the distinction. The examination proceeded:—"But the declaration of the Pope would have the effect, would it not, of removing the obligation from the conscience?" "No," was the reply; "he merely decides and declares that it is removed." He was then asked, "With whom does the responsibility rest? Is it [the responsibility of disobeying] removed from the party by virtue of the opinion expressed by the superior authority?" Answer—"Were we to consult the Holy See upon our allegiance or obedience to our temporal Sovereign, and that an answer were given us, it ought to satisfy the consciences of Catholics, considering that we know it to be an authority divinely appointed and divinely assisted for our guidance in the way of salvation, and consequently in the path of duty." Was the State to continue a system of instruction which not only declared persons to be absolved by the Pope from their oath of allegiance, but entered into the reasons for that release? Such a course he held to be a violation of the coronation oath taken by the Sovereign, and opposed to the Articles of the Church, to which many who heard him had expressly declared their assent. If the case rested there, it ought to be strong enough to prevent any Government or house of representatives from daring to tax the people for the maintenance of such an Institution. But he went further, and charged those con- nected with the College of Maynooth with teaching doctrines completely subversive of the allegiance due to the Throne, and dangerous to the Constitution by the Divine blessing established in these realms. At a public assembly held in Dublin on the 9th of November last (the same above referred to), the Pope's delegate, Dr. Cullen, had thus expressed himself:—

"Again, when, to gratify the ambitious views of a Dutch Prince, the daughter of a weak and unfortunate Monarch, forgetful of the ties of gratitude and kindred, banished her father (James II.) from his hereditary dominions, did not the Catholics of Ireland resist the torrent of Dutch Calvinists, and French Huguenots, and Scotch Covenanters, and English Evangelicals let loose upon them; and, though they were weak and unfriended, did they not defend with valour and energy the cause of Royalty and their King?"

Was not this a gross insult levelled at the present dynasty? At the same meeting a gentleman named Reynolds, formerly a member of that House, incidentally mentioned the name of the Queen, which was hissed from one end of the room to the other, while a reference to the Pope was hailed with three cheers. These were not trivial ebullitions of the moment, but were evidences of a deep-seated feeling, which only required opportunity to become dangerous. There was one particular doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, for the inculcation of which, among others, this £30,000 was paid—namely, that all who were baptized, whether by Protestant Ministers or by Protestant laymen, became, by the fact itself, members of the Roman Catholic Church, and subjects of the Pope, to whom they owed allegiance. It was true that Protestants might renounce the benefits to which they thus became entitled, but by so doing they rendered themselves heretics, and liable in the eye of the Church to punishment, even to the extent of death. As long as Roman Catholics were weak it was vain for them to hope for the infliction of these penalties; but if ever power once more fell into their hands, those who had heretically refused communion with their Church would become the legitimate objects of their attack. That these doctrines did exist and were entertained he had proved by quotations in former addresses to the House, He implored hon. Members not to treat the matter lightly, for it was not to be supposed that sins such as he had described could be suffered to go on with impunity. Where were the Ministers of the Crown—where was the Attorney General for Ireland—that they had taken no move in the matter? In former days similar attacks against the honour and dignity of the Crown would not have been suffered, but would have led to legal prosecutions, and, if, necessary, the Representatives of the people would have addressed the Queen to instruct her Ministers to cause the Law Officers to defend the religion which they had sworn to uphold. The Throne and the religion of the State in these days, however, were no longer assailed by attacks slily insinuated, but by aggressions boldly and impudently avowed. A remarkable article had recently appeared in the great leading organ of the press, which had never yet been found supporting what could in any way be termed bigoted opinions, (and had constantly charged him (Mr. Spooner) with bigotry, while it gave him credit for honesty); and he trusted that the document to which he referred would have its full weight with the House and with the public. What said this great organ of opinion now? It said—

"It is only due to the memory of men who underwent much obloquy for the time, and were even treated with a peculiar and galling kind of contempt not usual in English political warfare, to ask ourselves, after an experience of just thirty years, which side was in the right? Have the results been in accordance with the sanguine anticipations of Canning, of Mackintosh, of Grey, and of Brougham, or has the measure turned out as was predicted by Lord Eldon, 'that hater of all that was liberal and pleasant,' and by Lord Winchilsea, at whose tirades we have all laughed so heartily? There is, unhappily, no doubt about it; the genius, the liberality, and the eloquence were wrong; the narrowness, the bigotry, and the prejudice wore right. Ever since the day of deliverance the conduct of the Roman Catholics has more and more confirmed the predictions of their enemies, more and more disappointed the anticipations of their friends… It would be childish to deny that we have raised up among ourselves a party which is neither Liberal nor Conservative, neither English nor Irish, which holds its allegiance to a foreign Power paramount to its allegiance to its domestic Sovereign… Where but in a Roman Catholic meeting, presided over by a Bishop, and harangued by Deans and Canons, could the name of the Queen be received with a burst of disapprobation which rendered the speaker inaudible from the very voices which yelled out a determination to fight for the Pope? From whom but a Roman Catholic Bishop could one hear it laid down that it was the duty of a constituency in these islands to exercise their influence on their representatives to induce the Government to put down a rebellion in a foreign State; and only because that tyrannical Sovereign was the head of their Church, and they had therefore a vested interest in perpetuating his tyranny and corruption? There is no divided allegiance, as was apprehended. The allegiance is wholly given to one person, and nothing is left for the Queen but yells of disapprobation and the accusation of having starved two millions of her subjects."—The Times, December 13, 1859.

Was all this to go on, or would they do something to stop it? He had always said that the fruits of Maynooth teaching would one day be seen; were they not now visible? Yet did not the members of the Government consult the Popish party in all they did? And those he generally acted with did so a great deal too much. Both parties tried too much to reconcile those who would never be reconciled, but who would go with both parties just as far as would serve their purpose, and enable them to carry out their disloyal and rebellious opinions. (Hear, and No). Let those who cried "No" contradict the facts he had stated. Let them prove that these meetings had never been held, that such speeches had never been made. He challenged denial of what he had stated. He had differed from Lord Eldon on the question of emancipation, for, judging from what he saw of the conduct of Roman Catholic gentlemen at that time, he did not fear admitting them into Parliament, and what assistance he could render them out of the House he gave them. But it was done in ignorance of that priestly domination in which another generation had been nursed up, and the doctrines subversive of everything loyal that had been taught from Maynooth to the deluded Papists of Ireland; those doctrines would on any opportunity lead them to unite themselves to any enemy who might attempt to change the succession, and go hack to the line of that poor Prince who was so shamefully used, as the Pope's delegate had said, by his own child. It was an extraordinary fact that there had been a change in the books used at Maynooth. Bailey's "Moral Theology" was formerly used, which taught, on the validity of marriage, that the rite was good and binding though not celebrated by a Roman Catholic priest. Bailey's work was now superseded by Scavigni's, with the approval of the Pope. Scavigni's work taught that no marriage was valid unless celebrated by priests of the Roman Church. By this teaching the Queen of these realms was only nominally married, and consequently the issue of that marriage were illegitimate. Were they prepared to give such doctrines all the authority of the House by voting a grant to teach them? There was a de- scendant of the Stuarts still existing, who, but for the Act of Settlement and the Protestant oath now required, would undoubtedly be the heir to the throne of England. If they permitted it to be taught that the children of the English Sovereign were illegitimate, and any persons should attempt to act on that belief, could they be prosecuted as traitors and rebels, would not such persons turn round and say, "You taught it, you paid for the books from which we learned it." They were standing in a most dangerous position. Their duty was to defend their Queen's rights, privileges, honour, character, and dignity, and yet they were paying money to those priests who taught their flocks that Her Majesty was not their rightful Sovereign, and that her children were illegitimate. He felt that he had already trespassed too much on the attention of the House, but he had one or two more observations to make. He wished for many reasons that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in his place. What were the opinions of his right hon. Friend on this subject? He knew the opinions of his right hon. Friend had been changed, but they had made too deep an impression on his (Mr. Spooner's) mind for him to change them; they remained there unshaken and immovable. The worst thing he would wish for his right hon. Friend was, that he should come back to his old opinions, and stand forth as the powerful defender of the rights of the Protestant Church." What did his right hon. Friend say on the subject in his well-known book—The State in its Relations with the Church. There was this remarkable paragraph in that book—

"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 homo education than by a foreign one, and that a gradual mitigation in the features of Irish Romanism would be produced when her Ministers where no longer familiarized with its condition in Continental countries where Romanism is the religion of the State…Instead of which it has been found that the facility for 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."

As to the grant—

"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 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—Maynooth—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 parsimony, lax principles, and erroneous calculations."

These were the sentiments of his right hon. and much respected Friend—not declared in the heat of debate in a hasty speech, without due consideration and reflection—but deliberately published to the world with the sanction of his high name. As to the alleged compact, how did it stand? When was it made? Certainly not at the Union—it never formed any part of that treaty; but even were it so (which is clear it was not), it has long since ceased; for all the grants to the charitable and public institutions, made by the treaty, were only to last for twenty years. Certainly it was not made by that House. The vote for the support of the College was granted annually in the estimates, and might be withheld at any time. It was actually withheld in one year when Mr. Perceval was Minister. It frequently varied in amount. The present arrangemen had been made by Sir Robert Peel without any consideration; who held that we were perfectly free to repeal it at any time, if we found it did not answer the intended purpose, and if the message of peace was not received in a spirt of peace—those were his (Sir R. Peel's) words. Exactly the same view was held by the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs when the question of compact was discussed. Compact there was none. Parliament freely gave, and Parliament could take away. The plea on which it was given by Sir Robert Peel was that it would prove a message of peace to Ireland, and promote the feeling of loyalty among the Roman Catholic priests in that country. Had this expectation been realized? Did they not know that juries were frequently so much under the influence of the priests as to give verdicts contrary to the direction of the Judges on points of law, and contrary to the clearest demonstration of fact, their conduct amounting, in truth, to an utter perversion of justice? There was another question he had already hinted at, and to which he wished more fully to refer— he meant the conduct of Parliament in regard to the Coronation Oath. What did they require when the Sovereign of this country was crowned? He called the attention of hon. Members to the words of that solemn oath which Her Majesty took in ratification of the sacred compact between Her and Her people in presence of Almighty God. [The hon. Gentleman here read the words of the oath from the printed form.] After administering that oath how could they require Her consent to a grant to Roman Catholic priests who taught that the very truths She swore to maintain were but falsehoods? It was not likely that he should have an opportunity of again addressing the House on this subject, but he could not leave them without once more expressing his earnest opinion that by supporting Maynooth they were committing a great national sin; and they might rest assured that although individuals were punished for their sins in another life, nations were always punished in the present world, and punished by the subversion of their rights and privileges. God forbid that it should be so with this country! but they had been too long going on in their present sinful course, and he called on them as they professed to be Christians—both those belonging to the Established Church and Nonconformists—to use their endeavours to put down this monstrous system. Those who claim to be the friends of civil and religious liberty should remember that wherever Roman Catholicism was predominant its clergy were hostile to that principle, and strove to gain the ascendancy over the civil power. Oh, that he could convince the House of the sin and danger of continuing this system! He took, perhaps, a stronger view of this subject now that he approached so near to the natural term of human life. All he could say was, that if the House persisted in its present course, the guilt would not be his. He would be wholly unworthy of the honourable position in which a large constituency had placed him if he did not manfully declare that we were now committing a great national sin, and if he did not implore the House to cast aside party feeling, and give to this question its calmest and most solemn consideration. He was reminded by the results of this ungodly and impolitic measure of a place in Holy Writ where it is said, "They hatch cockatrice eggs and weave the spider's web." That House by its grants supplied the eggs, the Maynooth professors hatched them, and Ireland was overrun with spiritual serpents. Meanwhile the wily Jesuits had been secretly weaving the spider's web in which many hon. Members had been caught already; and he would warn them that they would find that web too strong to allow of their escape. Before concluding, he wished to call the attention of the noble Lord at the head of the Government to an Irish weekly newspaper called The Irishman, the chief writer in which was said to be a Mr. Mitchell, a pardoned rebel, who spurned his pardon, and who was now living in Paris. The law officers of the Crown ought to be instructed to watch the articles appearing from time to time in that paper, the tendency of which was of a most subversive and insidious character. Under the pretence of the defence of Ireland there was a series of strategic articles, evidently the work of a military hand and meant for a revolutionary purpose. One clause in his present Resolution was intended to preserve vested rights.—[Divide.] He hoped he had not trespassed long on the time of the House, and he had guarded himself against saying anything that could give personal offence to any hon. Member. There was no compact which bound Parliament in this matter; but, young men having been induced to enter this College in the expectation that certain privileges would be continued to them, it would not be fair to turn them adrift until their education was finished. These, then, were his views, feebly and most imperfectly expressed. He only wished that some of the eloquent Gentlemen beside him had consented to take up this question. But he felt himself actuated by honest motives, and by a conscientious desire, if possible, to be of some use in his generation in supporting that blessed Constitution under which we still had the happiness to live, but the security of which was endangered by the principles which the Jesuits of the Roman Catholic Church upheld and taught. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the House should resolve itself into a Committee to consider the Acts for the Endowment of the College of Maynooth, with a view to the withdrawal of any endowment out of the Consolidated Fund, due regard being had to vested rights and interests.

said, that in rising to second the Motion, he followed one who, through a long political life, had distinguished himself by his perfect con- sistency, and who, whatever the depth of his political or religious convictions, had always endeavoured to express himself with temper and moderation. The grounds upon which he based his own opposition to the grant were very simple. In stating those grounds, he hoped he should avoid saying anything that could be personally offensive to any hon. Member. He held, that according to the theory of our Constitution, there was but one Church established within the realms of England and Ireland, and that was the United Church of England and Ireland. He, therefore, did not consider it was the duty of the State to hold out pecuniary assistance to any body of Nonconformists; and he could not distinguish the Roman Catholics from any other body of Nonconformists. Although he was opposed to the continuance of the Maynooth Grant, he by no means wished that it should be put an end to without giving an adequate compensation to vested interests. His hon. Friend, by the terms of his Motion, had shown a much more forbearing spirit than the Protestant Dissenters, who, on a recent occasion, displayed a desire to deprive the Established Church of her rights without any compensation. He should probably be told that in taking his present course he was alienating from him and his friends the support of the Roman Catholic Members, who wore the natural allies of the Conservative party. Now he (Mr. Long) could not think so meanly of the motives of the Roman Catholic Members of that House, as to suppose that on a question of this kind, involving a point of conscience, those hon. Members would take offence at a firm but temperate refusal to support their Church from funds contributed by Protestant ratepayers, or that they would on that account refrain on other occasions from acting in harmony with the party with whose views their own really coincided. He would remind those hon. Gentlemen that it was not to the Liberals, as the party opposite were commonly called, they were indebted for the endowments granted to the Roman Catholic chaplains of the army and the navy. He was not saying whether that measure was right or wrong; but if it was right, it was strange that a Liberal Government, which had had a prolonged tenure of power, had not found time to adopt it. When in 1850 the Pope thought fit to revive his ancient jurisdiction in this realm, and sent over a Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, what was the conduct of the Liberal Government, and the then chief of the Liberal party? He remembered seeing about that time a caricature in a well-known humorous periodical, in which there appeared the figure of a certain noble Lord opposite, in the shape of a little boy, who, after chalking upon the walls of Durham the words "No Popery," was seen running away in terror of what he had done. He could not help reminding Roman Catholic Members of the conduct of noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemen on the Liberal side of the House. One of the former, some years ago, published a memorable letter on the subject of the assumption of ecclesiastical titles. To that letter he need not more particularly refer; for every hon. Gentleman in the House no doubt knew of its contents. The conduct of the leaders of the Liberal party in respect of Roman Catholic affairs, was such that in the remarks which he was making in support of a Motion for the repeal of the Maynooth Grant, he did not think he ran any risk of alienating the support of Roman Catholic Members from the Conservative party. It could not be possible that Roman Catholic Members found in the present occupants of the Treasury bench exponents of their opinions, or that they could expect to find in them sincere upholders of the Maynooth Grant. He would wish to allude briefly to the state of the Roman Catholic Church in this country; and in so doing, he should refer to an extract from a work of the Count de Montalembert. In the passage to which he would refer, the Count observed, that when the last of the Stuarts attempted to recover the throne of his fathers, the Roman Catholics in this country were a miserable few, but that at the present time, wherever the flag of England floated, it sheltered Roman Catholic colleges, schools, churches, and other institutions. In another passage the same writer, referring to the British empire, said that churches, houses of education, and monasteries, for the Roman Catholics, were being founded with a facility and a liberty which not only had never been surpassed, but had never been equalled in any other country, Roman Catholic or Protestant; and he further remarked, that in Ireland, under the operation of the Incumbered Estates Act, large properties had passed out of the hands of Protestant proprietors into those of Roman Catholics. If, then, the Roman Catholic Church in these realms was so rich, prosperous, and powerful, its followers must be perfectly well able to give up the miserable grant of £36,000 per year, which was doled out to them by an unwilling Parliament, and was paid by Protestant ratepayers. He would ask the Roman Catholic Members would it not be better, for peace' sake, to accept such terms as were offered—a fair compensation for vested rights and interests. It was the conduct of Sir R. Peel in 1845, in preparing the ignis fatuus of expediency to principle, in reference to this grant, that had alienated from him a party perhaps the strongest and most compact that had ever existed in that House. He would on the present occasion appeal to the Conservative party to hold by their principles. They could not consistently endow error. They must choose between England and the Church of Rome. If England was right, Rome must be wrong. This was the ground on which he appealed for Conservative support for the Motion of his hon. Friend; and hoping that a large majority would confirm the views of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner), he had much pleasure in seconding the proposition then before the House.

said, he did not intend to occupy the House at any length on a subject which must be almost, if not entirely, exhausted. He did not think the House of Commons ought to be converted into a religious conventicle, and therefore he would regard the matter, not from a religious, but from a political point of view. If the Regium Donum were to be withdrawn, and the Church establishment in Ireland abolished, then he would not advocate the Maynooth Grant; but when other bodies received State allowances, the Roman Catholics, bearing their share in the burdens of taxation, had a right to demand a share of the Government grants. No case had been made out for depriving the Roman Catholic Church of a grant which it had hitherto received; and he confessed he never heard this Motion brought on without recalling O'Connell's saying that the most dangerous enemy to religion that ever existed was a pious fool.

said, he must take leave to deny that there was any founda- tion for the charge of disloyalty brought against the Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland by the hon. Member for Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner). At a great meeting in the County of Tipperary, the Archbishop of Cashel said:—"We know how to preserve inviolate allegiance to the Queen, our only legitimate Sovereign." At a meeting in the North of Ireland, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of all Ireland, said:—"Our Gracious Majesty, whom may God long preserve, has no more loyal subjects than we are." The Irish bishops uniformly spoke in the same tone, and their expressions of loyal devotion were received with loud applause. The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Long) had not used a single argument which might not have come from the other side of the House with more propriety. The hon. Member had appealed to the Dissenters and Nonconformists to support the Motion. He wished to bear witness to the consistency of the Nonconformists and Dissenters on this question, but he could repose no confidence in the highly inconsistent course of the hon. Member for Chippenham. If, indeed, church rates, tithes, and the Regium Donum were given up, then the Catholics would give up Maynooth; but, so long as they were burdened with the expense of those establishments, they thought it would be an act of injustice—of one-sided and partial injustice—to refuse this paltry, miserable grant to Maynooth.

said, it was the obvious wish of the House to go to a division. He would only say a few words, out of respect to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, and in consequence of the interest which the question excited in Ireland. He wished to call attention to the importance of closing the subject by a decisive vote to-night. The hon. Gentleman opened the case upon the principle that a continuance of the grant would be doing injury to the Established Church, and sapping the foundations of allegiance to the Sovereign, and he pushed his argument so far as to indicate that this was only the beginning of a series of measures which would end in the repeal of Catholic emancipation. The seconder of the Motion founded his opposition to the grant on arguments—which as the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole) then Home Secretary, had judiciously pointed out on the last occasion this subject was brought forward, would lead to the withdrawal of the educational grant from the Roman Catholic body. In a former Parliament it was determined by general consent not to enter upon arguments when almost every quotation upon the subject had been exhausted, but at once to express their opinion by the legitimate process of a decided vote. He thought the new Parliament would show their prudence if they closed a discussion which produced such irrelevant topics and excited such angry feelings. By expressing a decided opinion, he trusted the House would declare that the arrangement so long made with regard to Maynooth was not to be determined, and that they were not disposed, by countenancing Motions calculated to excite religious animosities, to take the first step in unsettling the religious institutions of the country.

said, he rose to warn the House against being induced, by the dictum of a Minister, to close, without due consideration, the discussion of so important a matter as that which they had now before them. If they did they would soon lapse into the condition of the French Chambers. The hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. P. O'Brien) was so courteous as to apply the term pious fool to his hon. Colleague in the representation of North Warwickshire. If the hon. Member's observation had any force in it, there must be a goodly company of fools in that assembly, for repeated votes of that House had declared their wish that this grant should terminate, not by an arbitrary and unjust Act of Parliament, but by an arrangement granting to those who enjoyed salaries under the Act of 1845, adequate compensation for their offices, and by those decisions the House had only expressed the opinions of the country. It was not, indeed, difficult to understand that there should be in this country a strong desire for the termination of this grant; for if they looked over the world they found at this moment, in almost every part of it, a universal repudiation of those Ultramontane doctrines which were inculcated at Maynooth by professors paid by this Protestant State. France, Italy, Sardinia, Spain, and Russia all united in condemning them. According to the hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Hennessy), nothing could be more loyal than the conduct of the Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops in Ireland. But there was a policy in that loyalty. He had not forgotten that in August last the leading journal, which reflected the opinions of that school of Roman Catholics, and circulated them more widely than he could wish—that at that time, when it was supposed that the Emperor of the French was the servant of Rome, The Tablet declared that no act could make His Majesty so popular and secure him such universal support in Europe as the invasion of England, and added that during such an operation he would be secured against any attacks by secret societies in France. What, he (Mr. Newdegate) should like to be told, did the conductors of The Tablet know of the operations of these secret societies that they thus confidently predicted their forbearance. At that time, he (Mr. Newdegate) did not observe any such loyal expression on the part of Dr. Cullen and the other Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland, as those for which the hon. Member for the King's County wished them to have credit; but he had noticed that whenever they were at public dinners they gave the toast of "The Pope" precedence of that of "The Queen," and thus offered a deliberate insult to the Majesty of this country. Now that they had discovered that the Emperor of the French would not act as the mere servant of the See of Rome, and had expressed his determination not to restore the temporal power of the Pope—which had been so badly used—there were abundant expressions of loyalty on the part of these archbishops and bishops towards Her Majesty. His comment on this fact was, where was this loyalty when it might have been expressed in disavowal of the disloyal expressions of the Ultramontane paper at a time when there was a prospect of an immediate rupture between France and England. At that time there was apparently a silent acquiescence in the disloyalty of their organ on the part of these Roman Prelates. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. P. O'Brien) had quoted an observation made by Mr. O'Connell. He (Mr. Newdegate) would take the liberty of quoting some remarks from the same authority in reference to this very grant to Maynooth. He (Mr. O'Connell) was in Ireland when the grant was sanctioned by that House in pursuance of the proposal of Sir R. Peel; and he expressed his gratitude to England in these words:—

"I would not, I confess, go this length, when I came into this room to-day, for I had a little inkling that there was some trick under all this liberality; but my friend Dr. Gray brought mo the Act of Parliament, and I read it in my seat here, and I proclaim it excellent in all its parts. [Cheers.] …. But is this to make us give up agitation? [Cries of ' No, we will die first,' and cheers.] I do not mean to quarrel with any one who differs in opinion from me on any subject; still less am I inclined to quarrel with any one who thinks with me, that it was the repeal agitation that produced this change in Sir Robert Peel with reference to Maynooth. [Cheers.] Agitation, I thank you. [Cheers.] Conciliation Hall, I am obliged to you. [Cheers.] Repeal Association, Maynooth ought to pray for you. [Loud cheering.] There is a story told of the officers of the Irish Brigade: as long as a young man who came into the French army as a cadet conducted himself well, he was left a cadet, so they always found it necessary to become a little riotous to get promoted to the rank of officer. [Laughter.] We, in Conciliation Hall, represent the officer. The Irish cadets understand the policy of misconducting themselves. This is a boon to us to misbehave in future, and we are too honest not to give them the price for their money. [Cheers and laughter.] … When they tell us that we should thank Sir Robert Peel and the two hundred myrmidons that go with him from one side of the House to the other, I say, thank Conciliation Hall! thank agitation! [Cheers.]

Take the history of the grant from the first. The first grant was made by the Parliament of Ireland in 1795, and in 1798 there was a rebellion in Ireland. The existing Act of Parliament was passed in 1845, and in 1846 a Coercion Act was necessary to save life and property in Ireland. Had Ireland been peaceful since? Had not the fruits of that grant been the dissemination of principles among the Irish people which were not necessary to the Roman Catholic religion, but were intended and were used for the purpose of establishing and extending the temporal power of the See and Court of Rome? It was not for the interest of the Roman Catholic laity that the Government should authorize the dissemination among the priesthood of Ireland of Ultramontane opinions, for those opinions would neutralize the efforts of the laity, who might be disposed to lead the people of Ireland to peaceful pursuits and habits. An inquiry had been instituted in 1826, and it was then proved that Dr. Kenney, then Vice President of Maynooth, was a Jesuit, and had, four years before, founded a Jesuit college in the immediate neighbourhood of Maynooth. The character of the teaching at Maynooth had verged towards the Ultramontane doctrines, until at last all other teaching had been superseded by the doctrines of Liguori, as had been proved before the Commission of 1851. It should not be forgotten that when the grant of £30,000 had been made to Maynooth to improve the accommoda- tion and increase the comforts of the students it was spent in increasing the number of the rooms by one-half, so that half as many more boys could be admitted, notwithstanding the express provision of the Act of 1845, that no more than 520 students should be admitted, while the building itself was left in that state of discomfort which it had been the object of the grant to remove. In fact, no instance existed in which the authorities at Maynooth had not acted in a spirit of defiance; they were continually disseminating Ultramontane doctrines, which were admitted even by the Catholics themselves to be subversive of all order and peaceful principles. He trusted that the House would act in conformity with the prevalent opinions of Catholic as well as Protestant Europe, and put an end to the scandal of a Protestant State finding means for the dissemination of Ultramontane opinions.

was understood to say that the reason why he and others on his side of the House voted in favour of the Motion was because they objected to all grants for religious purposes. He could not, however, help expressing his amazement at the inconsistency of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were so anxious to get rid of this grant, though at the same time they were straining every nerve to retain church rates.

said, he would just make one or two observations in reply, and seeing the anxiety hon. Members exhibited for a division, he would not detain them many minutes. He begged the hon. Member for King's County (Mr. O'Brien) to understand that if upon reaching his home, and, as a gentleman, reflecting upon the observations he had made that evening, he found he could forgive himself for having uttered them, then might he feel assured of his (Mr. Spooner's) forgiveness. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cardwell) had made a very characteristic, and, considering the circumstances, appropriate speech upon the subject of his (Mr. Spooner's) Motion. It was short, because he (Mr. Cardwell) felt that the more the subject was considered the more it would damage his favourite grant. It was wise, therefore, for him to retire, leaving his own opinions regarding the matter in mystery, and his (Mr. Spooner's) views unanswered. He (Mr. Spooner) could not concur in what had been stated, that the Roman Catholics were the natural allies of the Conservatives. For his part, whichever party strove most to conciliate them by unconstitutional and anti-Protestant concessions, would receive from him the least confiding support.

said, he could assure the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) that when he had used the playful expression complained of, it was very far from his intention to be personalty offensive to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. He used it only generically, as applied to a class; and if he had offended the hon. Member for North Warwickshire in any possible way, he begged to express his regret. Question put.

said, he rose, pursuant to notice, to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, requesting that consent might be withheld from certain portions of the statutes of the Colleges of Trinity and St. John's, in the University of Cambridge, now before Parliament. By an Act passed in 1856, entitled an "Act for the better government of the University of Cambridge," certain Commissioners were appointed, with power to frame statutes which were to become law within forty days after their presentation to Parliament, unless in the meantime an Address against their adoption should be presented to Her Majesty. The statutes were laid before Parliament on the 11th of July last, at which period everybody who had not been driven out of London by the heat and the river was occupied in attending to the election petitions against himself or other hon. Members, and it was impossible to secure the attention of Parliament to a subject like the present. Through the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, the statutes had been allowed to remain over for consideration to the present Session; and a promise was given that Her Majesty would not be advised to grant her sanction to them till they had been brought under the notice of the House. Therefore, as a member of Trinity College, and interested in its welfare, he had brought the subject before them. He believed that there were faults in these statutes which were calculated to be prejudicial to the welfare and usefulness of the colleges as centres of literary and scientific activity, and were at variance with the best interests of the Church of England, and consequently of religion itself. By statute 3, it was enacted that the master should be a member of the Church of England. Statute 6, provided that the College should be governed by a board, consisting of the master and eight of the senior Fellows, each vacancy being filled from among the other senior Fellows by election of the other members of the board. Statutes 16 and 21, taken together, provided that the master should be a member of the Church of England, and should relinquish his position in the event of his secession. Practically, the effect of these statutes was to limit the highest honours to members of the Church of England. In St. John's College the case was still worse; a student could not read for honours unless he was a member of the Church of England. The statutes were unjust in themselves, and adverse to the best interests of the University. They were drawn up in times when conformity with the Church of England was believed to be more of a test of loyalty to the Crown than it was at present. The statutes were then enforced for a political purpose; but the same principles enforced now could not but weaken the University. Mr. Mill, in speaking of our educational system, described it as one for making the students think right what we thought right, and as an abuse of the human faculties. No great minds could be formed under such a system, as its effect must necessarily be to cramp the energies of the students in their search after truth. It had also inflicted great injury on individuals. During the time he was an undergraduate of Cambridge, a Quaker gentleman was fourth wrangler; but he was not allowed to be a fellow of his college. In 1837 a Jew was second wrangler, but he was not allowed to take a degree; that had since been remedied, but he would not now be allowed to contend for a fellowship. Three years ago a Baptist gained high honours; if these statutes passed all his hopes would be destroyed. The senior wrangler of the year was a member of the Free Church of Scotland, and it was doubtful whether he would be able to subscribe the Articles of the Church of England. The Bishop of St. David's, one of the brightest ornaments of Trinity College, Cambridge, was in favour of the repeal of these exclusive statutes. The system of holding out rewards and punishments was, as Archbishop Whately remarked, calculated to bring over to the Church only those who were influenced by interest or vanity, while it would repel those who had a sincere sense of religion. The operation of the statutes to which he had called the attention of the House would exclude many of the best men from the highest emoluments of the University for daring to think for themselves. That part of the statutes which referred to the election of seniors would have a most prejudicial effect. It was true they were to be elected in rotation unless good reason were shown to the contrary; but what would be good reason where all must be members of the Church of England, and from long habit and association were taught to regard whatever belonged to the Church of England as right, and whatever was antagonistic to her then opinions must be wrong? The Bishop of St. David's had been compelled to resign his tutorship at Cambridge on account of his having written a pamphlet in favour of the admission of Dissenters to the University. For the same cause it was possible that the most distinguished ornaments of learning would not be chosen a senior or a member of that body to whom the government of the college was committed. It was extremely possible that the author of such a book as the Vestiges of the Natural History of the Creation would not be elected a senior. It was extremely possible that such a distinguished scholar as Dr. Donaldson, the learned author of the New Cratylus, would be excluded in consequence of his original researches in early Jewish history; the effect, in short, would be to shut out those great original minds from the highest rewards of the University, whom its best friends should wish to become identified with it. He appealed to the noble Lord (Lord Stanley), Member for King's Lynn, as a member of the University and of the same college to which he himself belonged, and attached to it by the same affectionate recollections, would he wish men of the most original research and European reputation to be altogether excluded from having a principal place in these colleges, and could he deny that this was likely to be the result if these statutes should become law? He was quite certain the noble Lord would do this question justice; at all events, he hoped all those hon. Members who wished to see in the Universities a fair field open to all, and no favour, would support him, in case of a division to prevent these statutes becoming law.

seconded the Motion. He regretted that, from a miscalculation as to the time the division on the preceding Motion was likely to last, he had lost the opportunity of presenting three petitions in favour of the Motion from the town of Cambridge—two from members of Dissenting congregations—complaining of the statutes of the University requiring the attendance of students twice at chapel on a Sunday, thereby preventing them from attending their own places of worship; also of the statutes of St. John's College excluding Dissenters from fellowships, while they were threatened to be excluded from fellowships in Trinity College. The statutes alluded to in the Motion of the hon. Member for Westmeath seemed to him to be a retrograde step in the march of enlightened and liberal legislation. Parliament had admitted Dissenters of every name to seats in that House, to the bench of justice, to municipal corporations, and the Act of 1856 was expressly intended to admit Dissenters to the University of Cambridge. They were admitted to take degrees, but excluded from those fair rewards of learning and merit to which others, being Churchmen, were admitted. If the position of a fellow was one which gave ecclesiastical power, or function, or office in the University in which education for ecclesiastical purposes was distinctly intended, he should not seek that it should be enjoyed by Dissenters; but he did ask that Dissenters might be permitted to enjoy those fellowships which were left in ancient times as a reward of learning and merit, and which were not connected with any ecclesiastical function or office. He need scarcely remind the House that the Dissenters who were excluded by these statutes, taking the population of the United Kingdom, constituted the larger part of the nation. It was not for the benefit of Cambridge or of the country that so large a part of the population should be excluded from the attainment of the honours and emoluments of learning and merit; it was only for the benefit of the religious sect exercising it that this monopoly was established and sought to be maintained. The restrictions and disqualifications to which he had referred were in the nature of pains and penalties for holding a certain religious belief. He thought the day had gone by when pains and penalties for religious belief could be enacted or continued in this country; yet it was proposed that a new test should be established by two of our principal colleges, which would inflict pains and penalties on the larger part of the people of England. It ought to be known that the declaration originally required from the fellows of St. John's was not that they were members of the Church of England; it was this,—that they would embrace from their heart the true religion of Christ, follow the authority of Christ before that of man, and seek from it their rule of life. Here there was nothing whatever in favour either of one or another body of Christians; but from the time of James I. it had been impossible for Dissenters to take degrees at the University until 1856; and it was by being excluded from degrees that they were shut out from the honours and emoluments which were the rewards of distinction; but, surely, when an Act of Parliament passed to remove the former of these disqualifications, it ought to remove the latter too. If Dissenters were allowed to compete for wranglers, and obtained high positions, as some of them had done, in the Tripos, surely they ought afterwards to be allowed to compete for those emoluments which were one of the inducements to enter the University. He trusted the spirit of that House would be altogether adverse to that retrograde step it was now sought to take, and that, acting on the principles of liberal legislation, which especially on the subject of education had recently prevailed, they would accede to the Motion. By so doing the}' would remove one more cause of irritation between Dissenters and Churchmen, and break down one more barrier in the way of that unity and cordiality of feeling which ought to exist between all classes of Her Majesty's subjects. In that hope he seconded the Motion.

said, that as lie was the only one of the Commissioners appointed under the Act of 1856 for the University of Cambridge who had the honour of a seat in that House, it might be desirable that he should give a brief explanation on the points referred to in the present Motion. Neither the Colleges nor the members of the Commission had any reason to complain of the manner in which the subject had been brought before the House. If discontent existed in the minds of any class of the community in consequence of what had been done, or if a misunderstanding prevailed, as appeared from the speeches of the hon. Mover and Seconder to be the case, it was expedient that it should, if possible, be removed, and that the House should judge whether any cause of complaint existed or no. With regard to the most important point touched upon by those hon. Gentlemen, namely, the exclusion from fellowships in Trinity and St. John's Colleges of persons who were not members of the Church of England, it was not necessary to vindicate the Conduct of the Commissioners, for the plain reason that the matter was one in which they whose duties were defined by the Act of 1856 had no legal power or jurisdiction whatever. That Act removed all disabilities upon persons obtaining degrees; it opened scholarships and exhibitions, and enabled undergraduates to enjoy emoluments without any profession of religious opinion; but it did not repeal that part of the Act of Uniformity, by which all persons taking fellowships wore required to belong to the Church of England. If the hon. Member wished to raise the question of opening the fellowships to Dissenters—which be (Lord Stanley) would hardly advise him to do—he should therefore introduce a Bill into that House for the purpose. Parliament had imposed the restriction, and Parliament alone could remove it. With regard to the removal of Fellows who might have seceded from the Established Church, the House would probably think that Parliament having expressly confined the fellowships, wisely or unwisely, to members of the Church of England, it was necessary that the College Statutes should provide some means of declaring that, when a Fellow had ceased to fulfil the condition on which his appointment rested, the appointment itself should determine. The mode of procedure pointed out by the new statutes was less likely to lead to arbitrary removal than that which previously existed, because he imagined that formerly any Fellow taking a step implying secession from the Church of England might have been proceeded against for heresy, and on that ground deprived. If the present tenure of the office, as dependent on church-membership, was to continue—and the Commissioners certainly had no power to alter it—it seemed desirable that the law should be enforced in the mildest manner possible, and not be liable to be abused for purposes of intolerance. Accordingly, under the new statutes the loss of his fellowship was made to depend entirely on the voluntary and deliberate act of the person seceding from the Established Church. It was, as far as it went, a relaxation of the existing rule. With respect to the other points touched upon by the hon. Member, it should be remembered that the Cambridge Commissioners were not invested with absolute or unlimited authority to make statutes either for the University or for the colleges. He, for one, did not complain of that, he did not wish that larger powers should have been granted, but it should be borne in mind when considering the statutes as finally passed, that they did not embody the unmodified views and wishes of the Commissioners, but were the result of negotiations with the governing bodies of the various colleges, ending, as such negotiation almost invariably did, in a compromise by which many reforms were carried and some abandoned. The Act constituting the Cambridge Commission provided that no statute should have the force of law unless it had the assent- of two-thirds of the governing body of the college which it affected. In those governing bodies the ecclesiastical element was predominant; and considerable disinclination was evinced by them to accept changes that appeared to them to wear the form of innovations, especially when pressed upon them by external authority. His own individual opinion was, that the college master should not necessarily be in holy orders, but that it should be left optional with those who elected him to choose a layman or a clergyman. Indeed, that was the view put forward by the Commissioners in the Minute of July 1857, with which they opened their negotiations with the various Colleges; and the same principle was repeated in the draught of the statutes afterwards sent down to the governing bodies, both of Trinity and St. John's. The feeling of those bodies was, however, almost universally opposed to it; and, finding there was not the slightest chance of the adoption of the measure in its original form, the Commissioners reluctantly withdrew it in order to carry other reforms which they deemed of more importance. Even had they succeeded, the assertion of such a principle in the case of colleges like St. John's would have been more of an abstract than a practical success, because, the governing body being opposed to having even the option of electing a layman, they would not have been likely to exercise that option in favour of a layman had they possessed it. This was an instance in which the Commissioners had thought it safer and more prudent to give way. Two other points touched upon by the present Motion—namely, first, the filling up of vacant places in the seniority by the master and the remaining seniors; and secondly, the compulsory celibacy of the senior fellows, wore matters of detail connected with the internal administration of the colleges, and did not seem to him to involve any important question, calling for the interference of that House. The hon. Member complained of the filling up of the vacant places in the seniority by the master and the remaining seniors; but he did not indicate in what other way he would have the vacancies filled up. The Commissioners found that the practice was an ancient one, and were not aware that there were any objections to its continuance. It was a system of succession by seniority, as a general rule, with exceptions in the case of any grave defect; and a power of exception so invidious and so repugnant to the feelings of men living together and forming a society of their own, they might be sure would never be exercised without the strongest and most urgent reasons. The Commissioners had proposed considerable relaxations in regard to the compulsory celibacy of the senior fellows, but succeeded in carrying only a portion of them. The governing bodies, it was found, were most anxious to retain the rule as it stood; and the reason, good or bad, which was put forward why members of their body should not be married men was, that men who had families to provide for would be apt, as had been shown in other cases where corporate property was concerned, to look to their life interest in the college property rather than to its permanent improvement. As to compulsory attendance in chapel, the proposition originally made by the Commissioners was to give a right of non-attendance at chapel in cases where conscientious objections were entertained. But he was sorry to say that of all the propositions which were submitted by the Commission none had raised so strong a spirit of opposition as that. He was bound, however, to say on behalf of the Colleges that he did not think their objection, as a general rule, was based upon any wish to compel the attendance of those who bad scruples of conscience about doing so; and he did not believe it would be the intention of any College to exclude Dissenters by any provision of that kind. They objected to be compelled to exempt them from attendance, but they did not object so to exempt them, if the power were left with themselves. It was clearly stated in the Act of 1856 that no person should be required on taking a degree, or obtaining a scholarship, exhibition, or any other college emolument, to make or subscribe any declaration of religious opinion and belief. There was a distinction, of course, between attendance in chapel and signing a declaration; but he had no hesitation in saying that if any such attendance were enforced in the case of scholars where conscientious objections were felt, it would be contrary to the spirit and intention, if not to the letter, of the Act passed by that House. In the case of pensioners there was no effectual power of interfering with the conduct of Colleges, for the plain reason that it was optional with Colleges to take or refuse any person who presented himself as a pensioner; and therefore, if they wished to exclude any one not of the Church of England, they might refuse him admission in the first instance, not assigning any reason. There appeared to the Commissioners not the remotest prospect of carrying their proposal as to attendance in chapel as originally framed, and they were therefore very reluctantly, as far as he and, he believed, others of their number were concerned, led to modify it so far as to delegate to the masters and seniors the power of granting dispensation, but to leave the matter in their discretion. He would repeat that, as to the question of fellowships the Commissioners had no power of acting at all; that subject could only be dealt with by the Legislature it- self. The two statutes respecting the compulsory celibacy of senior fellows and the filling up of vacancies in the seniority by the master and remaining seniors, were scarcely questions of sufficient moment to call for legislative interference. The other two matters referred to by the hon. Member who made the Motion, lay within a narrower compass, and might no doubt, be considered as involving a question of principle. He had stated his opinion upon those points, and he must leave it in the hands of the House to take what course they thought fit. For his own part, looking at the statutes as a whole, and considering the compromise come to between the Commissioners and the Colleges, he felt bound by the arrangements then entered into, and must vote against the Motion if it were persisted in. He did not think any good would be attained by merely referring the statutes in question back again to the University Commissioners. All the Commissioners could do, would be to send down their original proposals upon those points to the Colleges, and knowing what the feeling of the Colleges was, he had no doubt their answer would be that their opinion remained unchanged, and that they would not be responsible for the changes proposed. He would advise the hon. Member (Mr. Pollard-Urquhart), as the functions of the Commission expired at the close of the year, and as the legislation both for the colleges and university would by that time be completed, to wait till the whole of the new legislation on the subject was before the House; and then, if it appeared insufficient or to require amendment in regard to any of the points he had referred to, let the changes be effected by the direct authority of the Legislature. The Commissioners had not accomplished all that they wished, but they had brought about considerable changes; they had been met on the whole in a fair spirit, they had come to an arrangement on the chief subjects in dispute, and therefore, as to the present Motion, he felt that, as one of the Commissioners, he should be breaking faith with the Colleges if he were to acquiesce in it.

said, he hoped the House would pause before it interfered with the proceedings of the Commission ers. Parliament had delegated to the Commissioners certain powers. Those powers were to be exercised by the Colleges in the first instance with reference to the statutes which they might have to propose, or any alteration of the statutes which they might have to recommend. If those powers were not exercised by the Colleges, then it was for the Commissioners to suggest such statutes as they thought the Colleges might with propriety adopt. If the statutes were settled between the Colleges and the Commissioners, or the Commissioners accepted the statutes of the Colleges, it was thought by Parliament that, instead of bringing all those matters under discussion again, they would be more likely to be well settled by leaving the Colleges and Commissioners to mutual action. Parliament also required that the statutes should be laid on the table of both Houses, in order that either House, within forty days afterwards, might address the Crown, if they thought any provisions of the Act of Parliament had been evaded. Those forty days had, in fact, expired, still he did not take exception to that expiration but for these two purposes—first, to point out the inconvenience of leaving the Colleges with uncertain statutes, when nothing was more desirable than that the Colleges and Universities should know the statutes on which they were to act at the earliest possible moment; and, second, to point out that the latter part of the Motion could not be complied with, because there was no power to send back statutes to the Commissioners with any specific direction. As soon as the forty days had expired the power of dealing with these Statutes remained in the Crown, and in the Crown alone. The Crown no doubt had power to approve, and, by implication, power to disapprove. It was thus intended that it should be left to the Crown to determine whether action should be taken in reference to complaints either against the statutes framed by the Colleges, or by the Commissioners. The hon. Gentleman would recollect that there was some discussion on the Oxford Statutes when they were framed by the Commissioners, and then it was thought, by both sides of the House that it would be most inconvenient for Parliament to interfere; most inconvenient, because nothing could lead to greater embarrassment after delegating all these powers to the Colleges and Commissioners, to reopen questions which had been settled after great deliberation, much discussion, and mutual concessions. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. P. Urquhart) seemed to think that the provisions which had been made with refer- ence to the two great colleges, Trinity and St. John, were not, as regards religious matter in strict accordance with the intentions of the Legislature; but, if he would look at the Act of Parliament, he would see that the limits were carefully determined, beyond which the Commissioners could not go. The Legislature had said that university education should be open to all classes of Her Majesty's subjects, whatever might be their religious opinions, and, in order to insure it, there was inserted in both of the Acts of Parliament, the power of founding what were called private halls in Oxford and hostels in Cambridge. This was done that all persons who did not agree with the Church of England might have the fullest benefit of university education. But this provision did not extend to Colleges. For to go beyond that, and to say that the Colleges should admit within their walls, not merely for purposes of education, but to enable them to receive the emoluments of colleges endowed for a different purpose, or to take a part in the government of the Colleges which necessarily followed a fellowship being conferred. Those persons whose religious opinions did not concur with the intention of the founder, was not consistent with the Act of Parliament. Those matters were expressly brought before Parliament, expressly discussed, and expressly negatived. Therefore it would be inconvenient by an Address to the Crown to interfere with that which the Legislature itself had already deliberately determined. He trusted, however, he should be pardoned for making one or two observations on the points suggested by the Motion. As to the requirement that the masters should be in holy orders, it was much discussed between the Commissioners and the Colleges, and he believed he might say that the general opinion of both those great institutions, Trinity and St. John's, was that to dispense with such requirement would be detrimental and contrary to the original intentions of the founders. With regard to the celibacy of the fellows, the hon. Gentleman would remember that that point was much discussed and debated between the Commissioners and the Colleges. The different Colleges took different views on it, but the grounds upon which Trinity and St. John decided against admitting married Fellows were so strong in themselves as to demonstrate the propriety of celibacy being enforced as a qualification, if they wished to have a constant succession of energetic and able men, instead of allowing married gentlemen to hold fellowships, to the detriment of those whose anxious ambition was to get those emoluments and distinctions. Moreover, he did not know how the government of the colleges was to go on if they did away with celibacy to any great extent, for their good government depended as much on having the tutors and authorities resident in the college as on any other circumstance. There might be some Colleges which would desire to take a different view, but, if so, that is a matter which had better be left for themselves to determine. With regard to the last point to which the hon. Gentleman adverted, the attendance of students, who were not members of the Church of England, at chapel, he would remind the House that there was really no compulsory attendance upon chapel. It was left to the governing body of the college to decide whether that attendance should be required or not; and he put it to any Gentleman whether any institution could go on if it were in the power of any person to say—"I will belong to your institution; but I will not comply with your regulations." The hon. Gentleman must know from his own experience of Trinity College, to which they both had the honour to belong, that compulsory attendance was not necessarily required when reasonable grounds for dispensing with that attendance might be alleged; and it was only within the last six months that the son of a member of the Jewish persuasion, well known in that House, had gone to Trinity for the sake of the benefits therein to be derived, and attendance at chapel was dispensed with in his case without a murmur and without debate. In conclusion, he would only say that though there had been differences between the University and the Commissioners, and between the Colleges and the Commissioners, yet by the good feeling which all parties had manifested, those differences had been allayed; and he therefore entreated the House to leave to the Commissioners, together with the Colleges, the discharge of the duties with which Parliament had intrusted them; and he felt no doubt that they would make such regulations and statutes as would best extend the benefits of the education given by the University, and best promote the interests of all classes of Her Majesty's subjects.

remarked, that he should best support the principles involved in the Motion, by advising his hon. Friend not to press it to a division.

said, he wished to refer to the position of this Motion upon their Order-book. The House had just decided that the grant to Maynooth should be continued. Now, that was a grant for the benefit of the Roman Catholic clergy exclusively. Immediately after that decision of the House, a Roman Catholic Gentleman rises, and not content with the ranking of liberal professions [Mr. P. URQUHART: I am not a Catholic]—well, then, he would merely say this—he trusted that the House would not be induced by any Member, whatever may be his faith, to invade the rights of these colleges, which were seminaries for the education of the clergy of the Church of England, immediately after it had consented to continue an exclusive grant to the Roman Catholic College of Maynooth. At that moment there was going on in Ireland an agitation to break up the Queen's Colleges in that country, in which there was no religious test. Patience has its limits; and the members of the Church of England, both in and out of the House, might depend on this—if the friends of the Church of England were not more watchful, the interests of that Church would be sacrificed.

said, that in rising to ask leave to withdraw his Motion, he wished to thank the noble Lord, the Member for King's Lynn, (Lord Stanley) for the liberal support which he had given it.