annual Grant had been only intended as an aid, it had then become the only fund for the education of persons intended for the priesthood. He would impress upon the House that the first Grants were given on petition year after year." Sir John Newport, in reply, argued that "under the circumstances of the world at that time, were the Grant to be refused, it would amount to saying, that the persons intended for the Romish priesthood should receive no education at all, in consequence of the seminaries in which they formerly had been educated having been broken upthat it must be admitted Roman Catholic priests would not be made better subjects by being educated abroadthat since Maynooth was established, the demand for priests had increased." Mr. Grattan "wished to see Protestants and Roman Catholics go hand in hand. If they could be educated in Trinity College, he would rejoice at it. Keep the Roman Catholic at home-home education will promote allegiance-foreign education can engender no great loyalty-kept at home, and taught to love his country, he must revere its Government." He argued for the vote on the ground that "a large sum had been given to the Protestant Charter Schools and other Protestant institutions; and met the objection, that the institution might be made the medium of disseminating disloyalty through the means of the professors,' by asking was it not subject to the controul of Trustees, the Chancellor, and the Judges of the land?" Lord Mahon observed, that "as the influence of the Roman Catholic priests in Ireland was well known to be extensive, it was an inestimable benefit to have the care of their education committed to the Government." Mr. Wilberforce "could not help saying that the institution would tend to discourage the growth of Protestantism in Ireland. He allowed it was not only criminal but cruel to oppress or restrain the Roman Catholic religion but it was no oppression not to favour it to the detriment of the Protestant establishment."* In the debate on the Maynooth question, July 15th, in the same year, Mr. Hawkins Browne demonstrated "the anomaly of a college being maintained within the realm at the expense of the State, to educate a clergy for the purpose of propagating a religion which every member of that House was bound to abjure before he could take his seat; a religion of superstitious intolerance, and persecuting principles. If the Irish Roman Catholics wished to educate their priests, let them do it like the Protestant Dissenters, at their own cost.' Mr. Wyndham, in reply, "asked was it not better for the State they should be good, enlightened and loyal Catholics, than be left in ignorance, barbarism, and disaffection? Was it not better the Roman Catholic priests should be educated under the eye of the Government, than to imbibe their education under the auspices of an enemy." The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed "the honorable member had talked as if the priests had been under the care of the Government. He begged to say all the Government had to do in the matter was to bear the expense of the establishment-the least thing that could be done, was to give the Government something to say in the management of the institution, that they might know that they were not educating a society of Jesuits, who would not be suffered to exist in any other part of Europe."+ In the debate, April, 1808, Mr. Foster proposed an additional Grant for the support of fifty new students.' Sir Arthur Wellesley (late Duke of Wellington) said "the fact is, when Maynooth was at first established, it was not intended it should be maintained by the public * See Hansard, v. 8, p. 938. † Right Hon. Spencer Perceval. purse-the memorial originally presented to the House prayed for a charter to appoint Trustees to receive funds. for the purpose." His lordship also objected to educating a greater number of priests than were at that time in the institution, as the number then educated added to those trained up in other institutions, would be quite sufficient for Ireland." Mr. Ponsonby insisted" that there had been an understanding between Government and the Catholics, that a sum should be granted sufficient to support four hundred students. He asked, "was it wise to refuse the Catholics such a favour-to how many worse purposes would the house vote away many such sums? Considering the influence which the clergy, of every denomination, in every country, had over the people, it was right in statesmen to keep the clergy in good humour with them." The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied, that "whatever might have been the understanding between the Catholics and the Government of which the right honorable gentlemen was a member, Parliament did not stand committed by any such pledge. As to the assertion that the vote he would give was dictated by bigotry or intolerance, he could not admit that it should be ascribed to either. It was no part of religious toleration to make a provision for the education of the clergy of the tolerated sect. If so, they ought to go much farther, and do the same for the Methodists, Anabaptists, and Quakers. It was the duty of the State to provide for the education of the ministers of the religion of its own establishment, but the same obligation did not apply to other sects. If he had his choice he would much prefer the priests should be educated in open seminaries, in different parts of the country, where their intercourse with their friends would not be precluded, rather than have them educated in one great monastic establishment," Mr. Grattan asked, "while the spirit of Bonaparte pervaded the Continent, was that a time to refuse the Grant G to Maynooth, which would send the priests abroad for education. He doubted that the priests had as much influence over the people as was supposed. If they wished the Catholics of Ireland to be well conducted. they would make their priests objects not of contempt, but of veneration!!" Mr. Croker" objected to the endowment, because the education being gratuitous, the persons educated were from the lowest ranks of life; and if this were not the case the higher classes of those who belonged to the Roman persuasion would bring up their sons as clergymen, of which, at that time, there were few or no instances."* Again in May 5, 1808, Colonel Montague Matthew asked "Would any one say that the Catholics were not to be confided in? Unless they acted liberally towards the Catholics they would run the hazard of losing Ireland." The Chancellor of the Exchequer again disclaimed the odius principle of intolerance-the memorial which led to the establishment of Maynooth claimed no pecuniary aid. The Catholics promised to defray the whole expense themselves, and though the Government and Parliament gave the £8000 in aid of the object, that was no reason that the country should be subject to continually increasing demands, for a purpose of which there was no precedent in any age or country, that of educating at the public expense, the priesthood of a religion differing widely from the estab lished one." Mr. Wilberforce remarked, in reference to observations of some of the members, that "Toleration, both as explained by Locke and Rousseau, was 'to leave to others the right of professing and teaching their own religious principles in their own way, as far as was compatible with the peace and security of society.' As far as an establishment -* Hansard v. 11, p. 90. was supported at the public expense, for the purpose of instructing a particular class, differing in sentiment from the established religion of the country, we went beyond the bounds of toleration-and evinced a degree of liberality unknown in any other country-no man was a greater enemy to persecution than he was, but he wished to see the Protestant religion getting fair play." Mr Laing contended the question was not one of toleration or of bigotry, but of pure legislation. It was only by conferring benefits on the Roman Catholics that their affections could be gained, or that they could be rendered good and loyal subjects, and he would support the Grant." Dr. Duigenan read the oath of the Catholic priests, "to shew that they paid an obedience to the Pope which was inconsistent with the King's supremacy. The provision for the education of the Protestant clergy fell far short of what was given to the students in Maynooth. There were in the University of Dublin thirty poor scholars, who got nothing but a dinner in the day; and seventy-two scholars of the house, who got no lodgings, and merely their dinner in the house."* On March 9th, 1812, on the motion of Mr. Pole that the annual Grant of £8973 be given to Maynooth, Sir John Newport considering the increase of Catholics in the country, moved "that the sum be increased to £13000, the amount granted in some former years.' Mr. Secretary Ryder "resisted the enlargement of the Grant; if this had been the first time of proposing the Grant he would vote against it. He did not wish to debar the professors of any religion of its most enlarged and liberal toleration, but he was not for giving a hostile religion the power of making proselytes." Mr. Grattan "supported the addition to the Grant on account of the increase in the population." * Hansard, v. 11, p. 125. |