COLONEL W. STUART asked, whether that Amendment would be in order? THE CHAIRMAN: I have already more than once, in answer to appeals that have been made to me, pointed out that I could not decide that a reference to the grant to Maynooth, the Regium Donum, and the other matters in this Resolution, conditional upon the Resolutions connected with the Irish Church, were beyond the purview and duties of this Committee. But I did venture to point out that it was a matter for the consideration of the Committee, whether an Instruction upon such questions was within the spirit of the Reference made by the House to the Committee. I venture to think, though I cannot pronounce, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread), moved as it is upon a Resolution which I cannot hold to be out of order, to be itself out of order. That Amendment is a further illustration of the inconvenience of discussing, in a Committee on the Acts relating to the Irish Church, subjects which are not strictly within the terms of the Reference. sentatives of voluntary principle did not see the real bearing and intention of these Resolutions, and were not aware that in an authoritative publication, which had been the organ of Cardinal Wiseman, there was a distinct declaration that the Roman Catholics supported the Resolutions with the view of appropriating to themselves the funds of the Irish Church. He hoped that in justice to his constituents, to the Nonconformist body, and to the advocates of the voluntary system, the Member for Kirkcaldy would press his Motion to a division. MR. CLAY presumed that it was impossible to find a subject on which both sides of the House would be in perfect accordance; but if there was one subject more than another on which Gentlemen opposite agreed with the Liberal party, it must be that if the Irish were disendowed the Maynooth Grant and the Regium Donum must follow. There were scarcely half a dozen Members who would controvert that proposition. If that were so, what purpose could be served by the Resolution of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Aytoun) the first half of which was out of order, and the other half of which involved legislative difficulties so great as to be almost impossibilities? More than that, the Resolution would introduce difficulty and confusion in the great work which the House had set about. The Resolution would stand as an isolated insult to Roman Catholics. MR. WHITBREAD said, he had no doubt that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy meant that his Resolution should be a supplement to the first Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman. He would venture to propose an Amendment on the hon. Gentleman's Resolution-that was to say, to leave out all the words of his Resolution after the word "that," in order to add these words "When legislative effect shall have been given to the First Resolution of this Committee respect. ing the Established Church of Ireland, it is right and necessary that the Grant to Maynooth and the Regium Donum be discontinued." Amendment proposed, To leave out from the first word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "when legislative effect shall have been given to the First Resolution of this Committee respecting the Established Church of Ireland, it is right and necessary that the Grant to Maynooth and the Regium Donum be discontinued,"-(Mr. Whitbread,) -instead thereof. MR. AYTOUN said, he was not willing to withdraw his Resolution; but, as there was a difference of opinion on the subject among some of his Friends, he proposed to amend it by leaving out the words, "or any State Funds whatever," and also the words "Roman Catholic" at the end of the Resolution, and inserting other words, so as to make it apply generally to "other religious bodies," and to the maintenance of any "denominational schools." THE CHAIRMAN said that, when the hon. Member for Bedford moved his Amendment, the Question to be put from the Chair became this-"That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." Until the opinion of the Committee was taken on that issue, it would not be comto move to amend the words of his Resolupetent to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy tion. MR. PIM said, he objected to both the Resolution and the Amendment. There was nothing about disendowment or secularization in the Resolution which the House had adopted. There was no parallelism between the endowments of the Established Church and the grant to Maynooth, so that the continuance of the one should depend on that of the other. There was a parallelism as respects the Regium Donum; but the grant to Maynooth must be compared, not with the endowments of the Established Church, but with the endowments for the education of the Protestant clergy in Trinity College. MR. FAWCETT wished to know, whether it would be competent for the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, in the event of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) being lost, to alter his Resolution as he had proposed? The answer would probably affect the votes of many hon. Members, who might be inclined to support the Resolution in its altered form, though they were indisposed to agree to it as originally proposed. THE CHAIRMAN: The Question which has been put from the Chair is-" That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Resolution." If this be affirmed, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy has no power to alter it. Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Resolution." The Committee divided :- Ayes 85; Noes 198 Majority 113. MR. LAMONT rose to move to add the following words : "And that no part of the secularized funds of the Anglican Church be applied in any way or in any form to the endowment or furtherance of the Roman Catholic religion or any other religious body in Ireland; or to the establishment or main tenance of any denominational schools or colleges." THE CHAIRMAN said, the Question was, that the words moved by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) be here added. The hon. Member for Buteshire (Mr. Lamont), however, has moved words which are substantially the same as the words of the original Resolution; therefore, the Question I have to put is, "That these words "-namely, the words moved by the hon. Member for Bedford"be here added." MR. GLADSTONE proposed to add a few words, which he believed would be accepted on all sides, "due regard being had to personal interests." He said it was with the greatest regret he had seen a Motion introduced, the subject-matter of which was of a kind to make it doubtful whether it were really within the spirit of the Reference to the Committee. In the most explicit manner he owned that it was to him quite a question for consideration whether it would not have been wiser to have reported Progress, and to have reported to the House the Resolutions passed in this Committee, and then had the Reference to the Committee on the Maynooth Grant framed in such a way that a Resolution like this might have been originally passed. He should not, however, press that point now. As to the Resolution itself, he could not object to what exactly corresponded with his own repeated declarations. It amounted to this. The Committee were dealing with a very great subject to which there were minor accessories, and the Resolution was simply to the effect that those minor accessories should be dealt with in the same manner as the main sub ject. He concluded by moving the addition of the words, "due regard being had to personal interests." Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, by adding the words "due regard being had to all personal in terests."—(Mr. Gladstone.) MR. DARBY GRIFFITH wished to know the meaning of the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. The Resolution condemned the Maynooth Grant; but was it intended to continue that establishment in spite of the Resolution? Was Maynooth College, being a corporate body, to be kept up as long as the last Professor there happened to live? If so, he doubted very much whether the course proposed would meet the approval of the Scotch and Dissenting Members. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would make a clear explanation of the exact meaning of the Amendment. MR. WHALLEY hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not insist upon the addition of the words, which would merely involve the whole question in doubt. Ile had voted on this question on the principle of fair play and "free trade ;" and if the right hon. Member for South Lancashire was not going to prosecute his great work upon that principle, he had not suggested any other. The House and the country were waiting to know on what principle the measure was to be based; and the great difficulty of the right hon. Gentleman would be to induce the country to go much further with him until he had been more definite as to his intentions. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR jesty's Ministers with reference to that IRELAND (Mr. WARREN) said, that the suggestion, and also upon the substantive Committee, before accepting this Resolu- proposition before the Committee. Before tion, ought to insist upon having a clear coming to a final decision upon this pronotion of what its meaning was. Resolutions position the Committee might be assisted had been passed with, they were told, a by the expression of the views of the Goview to legislation. He wished to know vernment. what legislation the right hon. Gentleman meant to found upon this Resolution. What were the existing personal interests which were to be preserved? Were they those of the professors and students at Maynooth? Was it, however, not a delusion to introduce these words into the Resolution; and were they not words which had no meaning whatever? MR. AYRTON said, he did not wish to discuss the merits of the Motion further than to say that, as he had always opposed the Maynooth Grant and the Regium Donum, he could have no difficulty in voting for it, except that it might possibly have the effect of postponing a decision of the question to a distant day. The Committee had been discussing and deciding a very important question in the absence of the whole of Her Majesty's Ministers. From the gravity of the Question put from the Chair, he should have expected that, before the division, some Member of the Government would have risen to address the Committee and to explain the views of the Ministers. It was always pleasant to Members of the House to find there was what was called conventionally a Leader of the House. There was, as they all knew, a Leader of the Opposition, and it was always pleasant to have the Leader of the House present when great questions were being submitted for decision. As Ministers had not been present to take part in the important division, he was afraid they had not returned to hear the admirable views expressed from the Chair and the suggestion made by the Chairman for the consideration of the Committee. It was that it might be desirable not to depart further and further from the recognized and ordinary usage of Committees of this character. When he first addressed the Chair on the point of Order he did not rely upon it; he extended his inquiry to the question of usage and convenience. The Chairman had suggested, for the consideration of the Committee, the expediency of not enlarging the scope of the Committee's deliberations, so as to include new topics which were not necessarily identified with the subject referred to the Committee. He was anxious to know what were the views of Her Ma MR. KENDALL thought that while Gentlemen opposite were quarrelling amongst themselves, they ought to feel very much obliged to the First Minister for absenting himself. The question before the House was a very simple one, though the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had a way of mystifying things that he (Mr. Kendall) had really to shake himself before he could be certain what the actual state of the case was. The question was, would they pledge themselves not to apply the proceeds of the Irish Church property to the endowment of the Roman Catholic religion? He did not wonder that Gentlemen who were doing so dishonest a thing as to rob a Church should wish to shy that question; but the country would understand what it all meant. MR. NEWDEGATE understood the words to mean the preservation of the existing interests of the president and students at Maynooth and also the Regium Donum. He hoped the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) would not go about saying that he (Mr. Newdegate) voted for the Maynooth Grant. By stopping short in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Aytoun) they reserved a power of applying every shilling obtained by the disendowment of the Irish Church to Roman Catholic purposes. If it was not intended to endow the Roman Catholic Church out of the spoils of the Protestant Church, why did not they say so? He regretted that Ministers had been absent during the discussion, and that any ambiguity should be allowed to exist on the subject. MR. J. STUART MILL: The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) has stated that we, who sit on this side of the House, have by the vote we have just given, declared that we intend to retain the power of bestowing the whole or part of the property taken from the Irish Church upon the Roman Catholic body. For myself, and I know for a great portion of those who surround me, I utterly deny that statement. I will resist to the utmost of my power any proposal for giving one farthing of the property to the Roman Catholie or to any other religious bedy in any shape whatever. I had no motive whatever in voting against the Motion of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Aytoun), except that it had been declared by you, Sir, not properly to come within the spirit of the Reference to the Committee; and also because it had been declared to be contrary to the Orders of the House-very strangely, I think for the hon. Gentleman to alter his Resolution from a form in which I could not vote for it, to one in which I could have done so. MR. DISRAELI: As I re-entered the House I heard some comments being made upon the duties of the Leader of the House. The duties and the privileges of the Leader of the House are very considerable; but I think they ought to be exercised with moderation, and, perhaps I may presume to say, with some degree of modesty. If I were to take every opportunity of speaking upon every subject, and were to thrust myself forward against the view of the House, in order to give them my opinions upon every possible topic, perhaps I should by so doing not altogether fulfil the duties of the Leader of the House, and should not retain the regard and respect of those among whom I sit. I have no doubt that when the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) has arrived at the position of Leader of the House, this House will find in him a more rigid regulator of their des tinics than they have in the Gentleman who now humbly endeavours to fulfil the duties which it falls upon him to discharge. With regard to the point before the House, I can only say that I entirely oppose the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire. against the disestablishment of the Church in Ireland. What has recently occurred has amounted to what I have always contemplated would take place, and what will be repeated. There has been a quarrel for the plunder among the hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I do not think that it was my duty to give an opinion upon such a subject. With regard to the particular Motion before the Committee-that of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy-had the important principles which it in some degree involves been placed simply and plainly before the House, I should not have shrunk from discussing them, or from giving my opinion upon them; but those principles are mixed up in this Motion with details of an impracticable character, which, if we had agreed to, would have disturbed arrangements of a very ancient date in this country, and which the public had long recognized as conducing to the convenience of the country. Therefore I was silent. I must say with regard to the observations of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, that I am still of opinion that the manner in which I attempt to perform my duties as Leader of this House is preferable to that ideal which, on several occasions, he has offered to the admiration of this Assembly. MR. GLADSTONE: I am not about to defend the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, who is perfectly capable of holding his own, neither am I about to discuss at large the conduct of Her Majesty's Government to-night. But if I do not proceed to discuss that conduct at the present moment, it is because I do not think that it is desirable to mix up that subject with the one before us, which is already sufficiently difficult and intricate. I must say, however, that I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has been successful in the explanation he has given. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Motion of the hon. Member for Kirckaldy would, if carried, have disturbed, in a remarkable manner, the arrangements of a very ancient date, in conséquence of the mode in which it was drawn up, and notwithstanding this assertion the Minister did not choose to record his vote against it. With the whole of his Colleagues, he left the House, seeking refuge in that small apartment which is appropriated to him. lis absence has reminded me of one of his many witty sayings. At the time when my noble Friend (Earl Russell) was PayI am master General, the accommodation of his office was very limited, and the right hon. Gentleman said, "I object to the system of shutting up great men in small rooms." Upon this occasion we have had a most complete exemplification of the system of shutting up in a small room, not one, but many great men, and under circumstances which it may, perhaps, be proper at some future period to enter into. In answer to the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Darby Griffith), I must inform him that I am not responsible for the Resolution which is about to be adopted. I have no difficulty -except the formal one I have already mentioned--in acceding to it; but I am not its author. It appears to me that the time has now arrived when it would be satisfactory to the Committee if the minor subjects connected with this question were stated with the same precision with which the major subjects have been stated; and that, therefore, we should make our meaning clear by applying to the minor subjects the very words which we have used with regard to major ones, so as to regard everything in the nature of a just personal interest. MR. HORSMAN said, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) had not yet expressed any opinion with regard to the Question. It would, therefore, be desirable if, before the Committee came to a division, he would favour them with the views of Her Majesty's Government upon the subject. Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to. MR. GREENE then proposed, as a further Ameudment, to insert the words"And that no part of the Endowments of the Anglican Church be applied to the endowment of the institutions of other religious communions." This was a subject upon which he had been seriously challenged by his constituents. He had no desire to say a word against Roman Catholics; but he felt strongly that they should speak decidedly in the matter, although he must at the same time say that he thought the disendowment of the Irish Church-if it ever occurred-was a long way off. Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, as amended, by adding the words "And that no part of the Endowments of the Anglican Church be applied to the endowment of the institutions of other religious communions." -(Mr. Greene.) Question proposed, "That those words be added to the said proposed Amendment, as amended." MR. WHITBREAD wished to know, whether the Amendment proposed by the last speaker was not out of order, as being substantially the same as that of the hon. Member for Buteshire (Mr. Lamont)? THE CHAIRMAN said, that there was an obvious difference between the two Amendments, seeing that one proposed to prohibit the application of any part of the funds of the Anglican Church to the Roman Catholics, whereas that now proposed proposed to prohibit their application to any institutions of other religious communities. MR. BRIGHT: I think it is a great misfortune that a question of this difficulty and perplexity should be brought before the House in this way. I think that the hon. Member opposite and myself hold very much the same opinions upon this subject; but I object to the word "institutions," as contained in his Amendment, as being a very wide one. I do not know what it includes or what it excludes according to the interpretation of the hon. Member; but I think it is sufficiently wide to include schools. I objected to the Motion of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy very much on the ground that it would prevent any sum of money obtained by the disendowment of the Anglican Church in Ireland or any portion of the State funds being applied to I any denominational schools in Ireland. said that, in Ireland, it was utterly impossible to have schools which were not denominational, and therefore I was unwilling to vote for a proposition so wide, and, as I thought, so injudicious. The same thing is proposed to be done by the present Amendment, and therefore I cannot vote for it. If any hon. Member is desirous of proposing any Resolution or Amendment upon this subject, he should take care that his Motion should be couched in terms which are not liable to be misunderstood, and will include just what he intends to be tends shall be excluded. When Amendincluded and will exclude just what he inments are brought forward in this hasty way it is absolutely impossible for the Committee to discuss them with satisfaction. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite had exercised his influence on his side of the House as the right hon. Member for South Lancashire has done on this side, we should have settled this difficult matter long ago, and the Resolutions would before this have been reported to the House. I hope the hon. Gentleman, seeing the difficulty which I have raised, and which I think he will not easily meet, without further consideration, will withdraw his Amendment. MR. GLADSTONE: I am persuaded that hon. Members are desirous of giving to every Member a fair opportunity for considering any proposition which he has to make, and I would point to him that he cannot, and I feel almost persuaded that he will not expect us to bind ourselves to the terms of that which he regards as a vital and fundamental proposition on one of the greatest national settlements or unsettlements-call it which you like-ever proposed, without our having first seen the |