stances, but would give only one more, from a gentleman living in Ireland, who says

"I never heard the subject of the priesthood mentioned, that it was not universally considered that the priests educated abroad and at Maynooth were perfectly distinct classes. The one well disposed, peaceable, and of kindly feelings towards all; the other turbulent, assuming, political, and hostile to the British Constitution."

The honourable member then described the difference between those educated in Trinity College and Maynooth, as detailed to him in a letter by a friend-the former being mild, inoffensive, and gentleman-like in his demeanour -the latter a perfect firebrand.*

Several other members, in both Houses of Parliament, stated their opinions at considerable length; but on looking over the debates, we could discover no new argument materially affecting the points at issue; the statements made by honorable members being a mere repetition of the sentiments expressed on previous occasions, of which the foregoing, though a brief, may be relied on as a faithful summary.

By referring to the speech of Sir Henry Parnell, and others acting with him, it will be seen that they were altogether under a delusion. His object, as stated by himself, was "the complete union of all religious sects;" than which, as appears from various facts referred to by other members, nothing at any time was farther from the intention of the Romish Prelates. He denied that the students were taught in Maynooth "the doctrines peculiar to Papal Rome;" and adduced as a fact, the assertion that "the Irish Roman Catholic Church, was alto

*Hansard, v. 79, p. 110.

gether independent of the Pope, who he said, "scarcely ever had any communication with its Bishops, in consequence of the discipline of the Irish Church rendering the Bishops independent of the Pope!" he also "denied that the reading of the Bible was prohibited by the Roman Catholic priests !"

The fallacy of these arguments was made apparent by several members, who in subsequent sessions spoke upon the subject. The facts brought forward by Mr. Perceval, Mr. Colquhoun, Mr. Sergeant Jackson, and others, distinctly demonstrated the gross delusion under which Sir Henry and his friends had acted.

How completely deceived the so-called liberal Protestant advocates of the Roman Catholic claims were, by declarations of the Popish Priests and Prelates of that day, will be seen by the following extract from the speeeh of John Wilson Croker, Esq. in the House of Commons, in 1819

"Much as I respect the claims of my Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, I am not ashamed to confess, that my first and greatest object is the security of the Established Church. I would not diminish, I would not put into peril one jot of her dignity, one jot of her income, one jot of her splendour, one jot of her stability; but to preserve all these, to protect them even against fanatical sectaries, I think it prudent to conciliate the political affections of so large a portion of our community as the Roman Catholics."

We should like to know what Mr. John Wilson Croker would now say, after having found his hopes and anticipations so completely blasted

after finding himself so thoroughly deceived by the fair speeches and specious promises of the Priests of Rome? Surely no individual should more heartily join in carrying out the judgment of Mr. Justice Blackstone, by whose sentiments he professed to have been guided, in his decisions and speeches in favour of the Roman Catholic claims

"If, therefore, the case suppossed by Blackstone should arise; if, from some unforeseen circumstances, the Catholics should again become dangerous to the Constitution, I hold that we should have the right-I am confident we should have the power-of again placing them under all necessary restrictions."

He has heard it declared in the public assemblies of Roman Catholics, that the emancipatiou he advocated was not the emancipation sought by the leaders of the Roman Catholic party in the countrythat with them emancipation was not the end but the means that believing as a matter of faith the Romish Church to be "the only true church on earth"-it "would be again restored and established in Ireland, and the heresy which supplanted it extinguished for ever" will he not now feel constrained to say, "the time has arrived when at least the Romish Priests and Prelates should be placed under necessary restrictions." We have the power-we have the right-the Romish Priests are become "dangerous to the Constitution;" still all we would ask for is that we may not, by our continued support, render them still more dangerous than they have been, and are at present.

From all the statements brought forward by the friends of the measure, it will be seen that the chief argument for the Grant consisted in the expediency of supplying a well-educated, loyal priesthood, for the Roman Catholics of the country-several members assuming that the ecclesiastical property for merly belonged to the Romish Church, and had been taken from it ;* and that under such circumstances it was only fair in Government to allocate a certain sum for the education of young men intended for the Romish priesthood. Mr. Shiel, and some other members endeavoured, indeed, to shew that there had been a specific compact entered into at the time of the Union to support Maynooth. This argument was, however, proved to be utterly without foundation. It was distinctly denied by the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Perceval), and by several other members, that there ever was any understanding between Parliament and the Roman Catholics, that Maynooth was to be supported from the Government purse; and ultimately its friends could make no better argument than to shew that inasmuch as large sums had been voted to various Protestant Institutions, the Charter Schools, and the Society for Discountenancing Vice, &c., and as at the Uniont an agreement had been entered into for

* For refutation of this assertion see Irish History in Appendix. †The only clause in the act of union which could in any way be considered as relating to this grant, was that in the finance arrangements, the 7th section of the act, which is as follows:

• That a sum not less than the sums which have been granted by the Parliament of Ireland, on the average of six years preceding the 1st

support of a certain number of such establishments. Maynooth, considered as a benevolent institution, should be included. On this ground the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Foster, and others agreed to the Annual Grant of £8000, but opposed a larger sum. Even Lord John Russell admitted that supposing a compact had existed, still if Parliament had reason to think that they were doing that which was mischievous to the community, by continuing the Grant, or if the religious scruples of the community would not allow of the continuance of the Grant, there was nothing to prevent them from discontinuing it. On the whole, from all the facts adduced, in place of shewing that Maynooth had any particular claim over other charities, it has been made evident, it possessed no claim to any grant even equal to what the Charter Schools, and others of a similar character enjoyed. As then, these grants have long since been withdrawn from the Protestant institutions, why not from the Roman Catholic establishment? Will it be said that this was the only institution which has any peculiar claim on the public funds of the country? that while the Protestant Institutions, which were established more than half a century

day of January, 1800, in premiums for the internal encouragement of agriculture and manufactures, or for the maintaining institutions for pious and charitable purposes, shall be applied, for the period of twenty years after the Union, to such local purposes in Ireland, in such manner as the parliament of the United Kingdom shall direct."

* The Charter Schools were founded in 1733, to prevent the spread of superstition, idolatry, and disaffection to the Protestant Government, and to train up the native Irish in the principles of religion and loyalty.