As the seminary had been endowed by the deed of Louis 14th, for propagating the established religion of France among the Indians, so, by the right of conquest, the sovereign of Great Britain acquired the right of applying the funds of the seminary, towards the established religion of his own kingdom. Not that he (the bishop of Exeter) asserted that it was the bounden duty of the crown of England to seize the whole funds to protestant purposes: a portion of the property might have been reasonably conceded to the original purposes of the seminary, but, at least, a portion should have been appropriated in the exercise of the crown's unquestionable right, to the religious instruction of protestants. The crown, however, had no longer the disposal of this property: for its claim had been surrendered, along with other crown rights, to the legislature of the United Province in consideration of the civil list. The ordinance, he contended, clearly amounted to a violation of the Act of Supremacy. The incorporation of the seminary of St. Nicolet, during the colonial administration of lord Bathurst, in the reign of George the 4th, formed no precedent for this, being distinguished by the circumstance that St. Nicolet was a lay incorporation, whereas the present, being an incorporation for strictly ecclesiastical purposes, which was the true distinction in law, was an ecclesiastical corporation; and he denied the right to incorporate a popish institution of that nature, salva republica, in this country, or in any of its dependencies. To pass this measure, would be to commit a great national crime, in fact, to papalise whole provinces in de

fiance of the fundamental laws of the land.

The marquess of Normanby said, that the bishop of Exeter had all along assumed, in respect to this ordinance, that it was a mere whim of lord Sydenham's. Why, one of the very reasons for which lord Sydenham had asked an extension of the powers of the Special Council was, that it could not render permanent an ordinance which was introduced under sir John Colbourne's government, to give effect to the arrangement that had been made with the seminary of St. Sulpice. The seminary surrendered a considerable part of its property, in order that it might enjoy the advantages held out by the ordinance. There had been a bargain which had been fulfilled on one side. The value of the property granted to the corporation had been extremely exaggerated; it did not exceed 260,000Z. currency at the very utmost. Lord Normanby then proceeded to prove, that the rights of ecclesiastical seignories had been confirmed and recognised at the capitulation in 1759, by the treaty of Paris, which left the priests of St. Sulpice in the enjoyment of the same privileges with those of the sister institution at Paris: by the Act of 1774, which was passed without any opposition from the bishops in the House of Lords, while in the House of Commons it was expressly denounced by col. Barré, because it made the Roman Catholic the established religion of the province: and in 1792, Mr. Burke spoke of his having voted for "an establishment of the church of England conjointly with an establishment made some years ago by Act of Parliament, of the Roman Catholics in the French conquered

country of Canada." Lord Normanby maintained, that the seminary of St. Nicolet, incorporated under instructions from lord Bathurst, was a valid precedent for this ordinance. That corporation consisted entirely of ecclesiastics; and if its objects were partly edu cational, so were those of St. Sulpice. This ordinance made strict provision for the visitation of the corporation, and an account of its expenditure, as well as its rules and regulations, were to be submitted to the Governor for the time being. In conclusion, he reminded the house that this seminary existed on the faith of the assurances given by all governments from the date of the act of 1744 to the present time.

The earl of Ripon said, he was at a loss to guess the grounds on which they were called upon to disallow the ordinance by which they would seriously endanger the peace and harmony of Canada. When he went to the Colonial Office, he found the seminary in peaceable possession of all the advantages which were to be confirmed by this ordinance.

The duke of Wellington said, that he was satisfied that no one could dispute the equitable title of the seminary of St. Sulpice to a part of this property. He had indeed been disposed to think that the bulk of it had been made over by the Act of Union to the provinces; but when he expressed his opinion to that effect, he had not been aware of many former transactions relating to the seminary, to some of which he had been himself a party, but which he had since forgotten. Until he saw the papers now on the table of the house, he had not the least notion that the ordinance in question was but a

copy of former transactions. He could see no distinction between the present incorporation of St. Sulpice and that of St. Nicolet, which took place when he was himself in the Cabinet. He had also been a party to the despatch of lord Aberdeen in 1835, to which no man who had been a concurrent party could consistently object, on account of religious principles, to this ordinance. He therefore could not now stand upon the grounds which he had taken on the former night in opposition to this ordinance. He had then entreated the house to look into the documents referred to by the bishop of Exeter; he had himself done so, and he had in addition looked into some other documents which ought likewise to have been referred to, and the conclusion to which he had arrived was a resolution to vote against the present motion.

After this frank and characteristic speech of the duke of Wellington, the bishop of Exeter withdrew his motion.

A motion was made on the 2nd March by Mr. Colquhoun, for leave to bring in a bill to amend the Acts of 35 Geo. 3rd. c. 21, and 40 Geo. 3rd. c. 85, of the Irish parliament, relating to the college of Maynooth. By the first of these Acts a body of trustees were appointed, a majority of whom were to be laymen, composed partly of protestants. They had the appointment of the professors, and they drew up the rules of the college. By the same Act a number of persons, comprising the principal functionaries of the realm, the chancellor and judges of Ireland, were constituted visiters of the college, and the Lord-lieutenant was directed to receive the reports made

by them. But by the subsequent Act, the 40 Geo. 3rd. c. 85, the objects contemplated by Mr. Pitt, which had in view, first, a control by the laity over the college, and secondly, a control on the part of the government, were unhappily frustrated. The latter Act reversed the whole arrangement, deprived the government of all control, turned the visitation into a complete farce, and consigned an unlimited power to the trustees, of whom, under this Act, four-fifths were Roman Catholic ecclesiastics, with the right of filling up their number when vacancies arose. He thought that the time had now arrived, when the sentiments expressed out of doors with reference to the college of Maynooth, should find an echo within those walls, and when the sanction hitherto given to that college by the legislature should be finally withdrawn. He was sure that no man would for a moment say, that Mr. Pitt and lord Castlereagh would have lent themselves to the establishment of such a system, if they could have foreseen such results as the present generation had witnessed. The writers whose works were the class-books at Maynooth, taught doctrines the most opposed to loyalty towards the crown, to the peace of the state, and to religious freedom. Mr. Colquhoun then cited passages from the writings of some of these authors, which went to dissolve the duty of allegiance towards the sovereign, and to sever all social bonds between members of the church and heretics. Would it be said, that though these books were read, the doctrines they contained were not inculcated? There could be no doubt that the priesthood educated at Maynooth imbibed the doctrines

which they contained. Mr. Colquhoun referred to the evidence given by Mr. O'Connell in 1835, to that of Mr. Dennis Brown, and to the work of Mr. Inglis the traveller, in illustration of the character of the Maynooth priests. He referred also to the evidence given before the committee in 1835, with respect to the system of intimidation exercised by the Roman Catholic priesthood at elections, and which, he contended, afforded a practical illustration of the doctrines which they taught. In no other country in Europe were the priests allowed to denounce men from the altar, and hold them up to execration, but the priests of Maynooth made the altars of their churches an instrument for destroying the liberties of free subjects. He repeated, that such practices were the result of the doctrines inculcated in those standard works of theology which were in use at Maynooth. Such a system parliament ought not to sanction, and by repealing the Acts which now connected Maynooth with the state, they ought to withdraw from the college all legislative countenance. That being done, it would be for the house then to say whether it would grant the public money for the support of such a system. All he now asked for, was permission to bring in a bill to alter and amend the Acts before referred to, and thereby to dissever the college of Maynooth from the state.

Lord Morpeth said, he could not see the distinction attempted to be drawn between the Acts of 1795 and 1800, as if the latter had broken the compact entered into between the Roman Catholic body in Ireland and the state. Mr. Pitt was in office when the latter Act

passed; he accepted that Act, and adopted it as part of the compact entered into at the Union. Mr. Colquhoun had stated that, in other European states, the civil power had imposed restrictions upon the Roman Catholic clergy with respect to the inculcation of certain doctrines, but in those countries where the state controlled the clergy, it also supported them; and before the honourable member attempted to impose conditions on their teaching here, he ought, instead of seeking to reduce the miserable stipend bestowed on them by the state, to propose some more adequate means for maintaining them. As to the extracts from writers whose works were read at the college, he believed that they were read there in the time of Mr. Pitt; at all events in the time of Mr. Perceval, who had supported the grant. It might be that those works contained many things which neither he (Viscount Morpeth) nor Mr. Colquhoun would approve, but this proved nothing, for it was certain that the object which Mr. Pitt had in view in establishing the seminary was the education, in their own country, of Roman Catholic ecclesiastics; and, therefore, unless it were proved that doctrines were taught, or practices inculcated at variance with the recognised principles of the Romish church, no case was established for the interference of parliament. No such charge, however, had been made against the college of Maynooth. The noble viscount then, for the purpose, as he said, of illustrating his argument, referred to the Tracts recently published at Oxford, respecting which he read a long extract from a theological Review, in which those publications were strongly reprobated, as being

of decidedly popish tendency, and subversive of the principles of the Reformation. With respect to the conduct of the Roman Catholic priesthood in Ireland, though he agreed with Mr. Colquhoun in disapproving of the practice of holding men up to execration at the altar for political objects, yet when he looked at the general fruits of their teaching in the conduct of the Irish people, whose men exhibited more sobriety, their females more chastity, and both more patience under suffering, than any other portion of the inhabitants of these islands, he could not join in the indiscriminate censures pronounced upon them. He thought it desirable that the house should see the intentions of the opposite party towards Ireland developed, and therefore recommended that Mr. Colquhoun should be allowed to introduce his Bill, that they might see what it contained.

Sir R. H. Inglis could not suffer the allusion made by the noble viscount to the university which he represented, and which so grossly and grievously misrepresented it, to pass unnoticed. The noble viscount had attacked the university of Oxford, on the score of certain tracts published, not by but in the university. The university, as a body, was not responsible for those publications-the freedom of the press existed there as well as elsewhere; the only question was, were they class-books at Oxford? This was the real point of comparison, as to the books used at Maynooth. Did any member of the university lecture upon those tracts? Did any professor put them into the hands of any pupil? He did not agree with all that had been stated by Mr. Colquhoun; he had always opposed the grant to

Maynooth on distinct grounds. Believing the doctrines of the Romish church to be unscriptural, he could never consent to aid in any course of instruction for his fellow-creatures therein.

Mr. M. J. O'Connell said, he was perfectly indifferent, and so he believed were most Roman Catholics, to the continuance of the grant of 8,000l. a-year to Maynooth, which, if withdrawn, would soon be made up by voluntary subscription. But if anything was to be done, he hoped it would not be done indirectly, but on the principle avowed by Sir R. H. Inglis, that they were not to pay for that which they did not believe to be truth; and let this principle be applied and carried out by the people of Ireland. He then referred to a passage in a recent article in the Quarterly Review, entitled "Romanism in Ireland," the object of which seemed to be mysteriously to insinuate the existence of an extensive and revolting conspiracy in Ireland. The statements made in this article Mr. M. J. O'Connell entered into at some length, with the view of showing that they were destitute of foundation. He concluded by vindicating the character of the Irish priesthood, as challenging comparison with the clergy of any church. whether paid by the state or otherwise.

Mr. Langdale explained the distinction which existed in the Roman Catholic church between the duties of temporal and spiritual allegiance.

Mr. O'Connell commenced his speech by stating, in the most distinct and emphatic manner, that he believed in every word that was taught at Maynooth, but he disavowed the doctrines that had VOL. LXXXIII.

been imputed to the Roman Catholics that night, and which had been disowned and disavowed over and over again. They had been told that night of the disregard of the Roman Catholics for oaths. Had the assertion been made anywhere but in that house, he would have said that it was " as false as hell." Mr. O'Connell then entered into a variety of theological arguments, and declared that all difference between the Cisalpine and Ultra-Montane schools was at an end; and that all Roman Catholics now recognised in its fullest extent, the spiritual authority of the pope. The consequence was, that their religion was extending in every country in the world, while there was no country in which that could be said of Protestantism. He maintained that the Irish priesthood had a perfect right to interfere in elections, and to speak from their altars in condemnation of perjury and bribery. Further than that no priest had gone, and he defied any one to prove the contrary. In conclusion he said, he had been compelled by the turn which the discussion had taken to look at the question more than he could have wished in a polemical point of view, but polemics having been introduced by others, he felt that, standing in the presence of that God before whom he might so soon appear, he could not afford to give up one tittle of the faith which was his consolation and hope, and which, while he had breath, he would never cease to uphold and maintain; a faith which had been the faith of some of the greatest names in history; a faith which, in his firm belief, was fated to endure for all time; a faith which, to use the eloquent words of a recent publication, [G]