would be imperfect without religious instruction; and he believed the best mode of effecting this would be to give every facility of affording it without exciting jealousy, by placing it under the control of the heads of the institutions, and calling upon the parents of the young persons attend ing those institutions to furnish their assistance and to select the persons whom they wished to impart religious instruction, and the respective churches to provide aid for the purpose. This might be an erroneous proceeding on the part of the Government, but still the principle on which the institutions were founded was that of perfect equality, and, he believed, for the first time. They had endeavoured to found these institutions on a principle which would be generally acceptable. They had hoped they had attained that object, but it would appear they had been deceived. The opinion of the Roman Catholic prelates was against them; and he admitted that their sanction and assent was almost essential to success. He appealed also to the way in which the Charitable Bequests Act had been carried out, as showing the conciliatory disposition of the Government; and he had reason to believe that among the Roman Catholic laity there was a strong feeling of approbation at the conduct of Government. He regretted Mr. Sheil's speech, on account of the use that might be made of it in this country: it would be said, "See how unavailing all attempts are to conciliate the Roman Catholics of Ireland. Regardless of the warnings, the feelings, and fears of their friends, they hoped by proposing certain measures that they could make an impression on the

Irish mind; but instead of this, the leading Roman Catholic member in the House of Commons gets up and tells them, that unless they went ten times as far as they yet had gone, they would have an insurrection in Ireland." This, he believed, was not the feeling of the Irish people: he believed that the Government, by its proceedings, had made an impression on the feelings of the Irish people. With respect to the Dublin College, he contended that it was meant to be exclusively Protestant for though it was not so declared in express terms, the state of the laws at the time must be taken along with the charter; and whatever the charter, the college had been for two hundred years connected with the Established Church. Yet, because the Ministers did not open it to the Roman Catholics, they were to be charged with want of equality! Sir Robert cited petitions from the gentry and elergy of Galway, Protestant as well as Roman Catholic, approving of a college in that quarter, and he asked whether the same harmony would be evinced if the Protestants were deprived of their privileges? He finished by recalling to mind how he had sacrificed the representation of Oxford, and risked the alienation of friends, because he was determined to do justice to the Roman Catholics; declaring that there was still no sacrifice that he would not make to do justice between them and the Protestants, and to promote harmony.

Lord John Russell admitted great merits in the Bill; but pointed out that the higher kind of education was to be obtained solely at the Dublin College, presided over by a body exclu

sively Protestant, and that, he insisted, was not equality. The way to give equality would have been, either to make a separate institution for Roman Catholics, or to open to them so much of Trinity College as is of a secular nature. There were difficulties in the way of all Governments; one difficulty to the present Government consisted in their own past acts; but if they were to tell the people of England that it was necessary to work out the principle of equality, whether as regards ecclesiastical education or political and civil advantages, the difficulties would soon vanish. The people of England would see the justice of that policy. They did not so easily see the justice of a proposition which came piecemeal before them. They did not see the advantage of endowing Maynooth solely for the education of Roman Catholic priests; nor the advantage of a system of education from which religion was totally excluded. These propositions, coming singly before them, did not strike them with the force that they would do if Government were to bring the whole condition of Ireland before the House and the country, and were to say that they were determined to act according to the principles of justice. The House then divided

For Mr. Osborne's Amendment 91 Against it


[blocks in formation]

In the House of Lords the measure did not undergo much discussion. On the 21st of July Lord Stanley moved the second reading of the Bill, in a speech of moderate length; setting forth the principal reasons for the measure, of the broader kind, advanced in the House of Commons, and scarcely glancing at the details. He pointed out how the middle class of Ireland was unprovided with academical education, and how the want ought to be supplied; how the Legislature had to deal with a Roman Catholic population, and how impossible it would be to establish religious tests without creating a sectarian style of education. He declared that the Government were determined not to unprotestantize Trinity College, Dublin. He advocated a mixed education, as calculated to mitigate the asperities of religious dissension; and asserted the determination of Government to educate all classes in Ireland upon a system of perfect equality. He stated, in very general terms, the reason why no professors of theology had been directly provided for, since they could not have been provided for one class without providing them for all; while facilities had been afforded for the endowment of such professorships by the spontaneous exercise of private means. He avowed his belief that the rejection of the measure would be attended by the most disastrous consequences in Ireland; while he looked to the passing of it to produce advantages to that coun try of the most inestimable kind.

The Earl of Shrewsbury reiterated Sir Robert Inglis's say. ing that the Bill was a gigantic scheme of godless education,


the Government having been overawed by the fanatic feeling of the English people. He entered into a defence of the Roman Catholic religion, against an attack made upon it as idolatrous, in a sermon preached by the Rev. A. Alford, M.A., at Rugby, on the 18th of May last. He urged the Ministers to withdraw the Bill for a season, and reintroduce it in a shape better suited to the wants and wishes of Ireland.

Lord Brougham, disclaiming ever having attacked the Roman Catholic religion, expressed his disbelief in its truth, and his distrust of its moral and political tendencies. He warmly advocated the measure as most wise and liberal, because it established colleges without religious tests, a principle, perhaps, even more strictly applicable to Ireland than to England, though it had also been tested by the success of the London University. He denied that it excluded religion because it provided only scientific and classic instruction: could not religion be taught to the youths by their parents or by their pastors of their own persuasion? Those, indeed, who called it a 66 godless" system of education meant that it was a priestless system. He did not like it the less because it had a tendency to bring about the endowment of the Roman Catholic Church. As to the assertion that the Roman Catholic clergy would reject an endowment

Credat Judæus." It had been said of them, "Ut malignos cessare faciam, otiosos reddam ; a maxim to apply which to the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland none ever made greater sacrifices

than that illustrious man, who has just paid the debt of nature, Earl Grey.

The Earl of Carnarvon attributed no improper motives to Government, but protested against the divorce of religion from education, and feared that such a precedent might be applied to Oxford and Cambridge.

The Marquis of Lansdowne defended the Bill, but took exception to the appointment of professors by the Crown, and to the omission of establishing a central university in Dublin: which need not be a college in itself, but might represent the three colleges, and possess the faculty of granting degrees.

The Bill was also supported by Lord Clifford, Lord Beaumont, and the Bishop of Norwich; opposed by the Duke of Newcastle.

The second reading was affirmed without a division.

On going into committee, the next day, Lord Stanley replied to Lord Lansdowne's suggestion that a central university should be established. He admitted that the grant of the power to confer degrees seemed a natural complement of the measure. The Government were of opinion that it would be incomplete without it: but the question required more consideration than it would now be possible to afford to it. Perhaps the most satisfactory course, on some accounts, would be to affiliate the new colleges with Trinity College, Dublin; but their lordships would be aware that there were difficulties in the way of such an arrangement. Then came the question, whether the new colleges ought not to be associated as a separate university, the general meeting to be held either at a distinct

place or alternately at one of the colleges. It would obviously be highly desirable, upon this and other points, that the opinions and wishes of the governing bodies should be ascertained; and for this and other reasons delay seemed not inexpedient. Ministers had this object distinctly in view; and, as he had stated already, without the at

tainment of it the measure before the House would be imperfect.

The Marquis of Lansdowne suggested, that the formation of London University out of University and King's Colleges would form an useful precedent. After some few desultory remarks, the Bill passed through the committee.


Colonial Policy-State of New Zealand-Mr. Somes moves for Papers respecting the Affairs of that Colony-Mr. Aglionby, Mr. C. Buller, Mr. Mangles, and other Members impugn the Policy of the Government, and censure the Conduct of Captain Fitzroy-They are defended by Mr. Hope, Colonel Trevor, Colonel Wood, and Sir R. Peel, after which the Motion is carried-Mr. C. Buller brings the State of the Colony under the Notice of the House of Commons on the 17th of June, moving a Series of Resolutions, which leads to a protracted Debate-Speeches of Mr. Buller, Mr. M. Milnes, Mr. G. Hope, Captain Rous, Mr. Barkly, Sir R. H. Inglis, Sir Howard Douglas, Lord Howick, Mr. E. Ellice, Mr. Cardwell, Mr. Mangles, Mr. Colquhoun, Mr. Sheil, Sir James Graham, Lord John Russell, and Sir Robert Peel-On a Division, the Resolutions are negatived by 223 to 172-The New Zealand Question again comes under Discussion on the 21st of July in the House of Commons-Mr. Ward presents a Petition from the New Zealand Company, praying the House to take Measures for allaying the Apprehensions felt by the Colonists, and for reviving the Public Confidence in the Company-On the same day Mr. C. Buller moves a Resolution expressing the regret of the House at the State of Affairs in New Zealand, and affirming the necessity of a Change of Policy-The Subject is debated for two Nights in succession-Outline of the Arguments adduced in opposition to and in behalf of the Colonial Policy of GovernmentMr. Buller's Motion is rejected by 155 to 89-On a subsequent evening it is announced that Negotiations are proceeding for an adjustment of the Differences between the Government and the New Zealand Company-The Oregon Question-Declaration of the President of the United States-Lord Clarendon brings the Subject before the House of Lords on the 14th of April-Answer of Lord Aberdeen -On the same day Lord John Russell in the House of Commons alludes to the same Subject-Sir R. Peel makes an unequivocal Declaration of the determination of Government respecting it, which is received with great cheering.

[blocks in formation]


tlers at the Bay of Islands, terminating in defeat and serious loss on the part of the latter, produced considerable excitement in the public mind, more especially

« ElőzőTovább »