among the usual supporters of the Government was manifested. The Bill proposed to repeal the Maynooth Act, except so much as related to the constitution and powers of the Maynooth Trustees; but this latter reservation was opposed by Mr. Whalley, who moved an amendment to the clauses.

Mr. Gladstone, referring to the language of the fourth Resolution of 1868, denied that it pledged the House to repeal in toto the Maynooth Act. It merely referred to the cessation of the Maynooth grant. He explained that as it had been necessary to create a corporate body for managing the affairs of the Disestablished Church, it had been thought right to retain for the Roman Catholic Church the corporate body which the Government found ready created to its hand in the Maynooth Trustees.

Mr. Newdegate replied that the Charitable Bequests Commissioners could have managed the funds quite as efficiently as a special Commission. An observation from Mr. Newdegate lead to some sharp recriminations between him and Mr. Whalley, whom he charged, among other things, with having made the Maynooth question a laughing-stock, and with managing it so inefficiently that he had been compelled to withdraw his support.

After a good deal of discussion, Mr. Whalley's amendment was negatived by 324 to 196.

The main point in the clause affecting Maynooth College was the payment to the Trustees of a capital sum equal to fourteen times the annual grant. Its omission was moved by Sir G. Jenkinson, who maintained that it amounted to a permanent endowment, and was, therefore, a violation of the fourth resolution, which only spoke of compensation to personal interests.

He was seconded by Mr. Dalrymple.

The O'Conor Don (a trustee of Maynooth) defended the arrangement, which he held in no way unfairly favoured the College. On the contrary, if any partiality was shown it was to the Episcopalians, who retained Trinity College, which was more than a set-off for Maynooth.

Colonel Barttelot supported the amendment. He insisted that the cessation of the Maynooth grant was the question on which the majority of members on both sides had been elected, and denounced the clause as an attempt to endow the Roman Catholic religion out of Protestant funds, contrary to the general understanding of the country at the elections.

Mr. Gladstone denied that any distinction had been made between the compensations to Maynooth and to the Presbyterians, and taunted the Opposition with endeavouring to make use of a popular religious prejudice to deprive Maynooth of all compensation, after having voted about 800,000l. to the Presbyterians without a word. He argued that it was fair to take this compensation from the surplus, because, by the use of the credit of the Consolidated Fund in the operations of the Commissioners, this surplus would be increased by a much larger sum than the clause would take from it.

Again, the Regium Donum and the Maynooth grant were essentially charges for Irish purposes, with which the Imperial Exchequer had nothing to do, and it was just, therefore, that they should be paid out of Irish funds.

Sir J. Elphinstone reproached the Scotch members with violating the understanding with their constituents, and flying in the face of all the traditions of their ancestors, in sanctioning this proposal to use Protestant property for Popish purposes.

Mr. M'Laren and the Lord Advocate retorted that a suggestion to pay these compensations out of the Consolidated Fund would have been condemned universally from one end of Scotland to the other, and that it was universally known that these compensations were to be taken from the Irish Ecclesiastical Funds.

Mr. Herbert asserted that last year no one anticipated that the property of the Irish Church would have to bear these charges; but he was afraid that if this amendment were carried the College of Maynooth would get nothing. Before he voted for it, therefore, he required a pledge from the Opposition that they would support a proposal to grant the money required from the Consolidated Fund. Mr. Ward Hunt had no difficulty in giving this pledge as far as he was concerned, and included in it the Regium Donum compensations, which, he admitted, ought to be treated on the same footing. Mr. E. Ellice, though strenuously opposed to material parts of the clause-holding the surplus to be as much public property as the Consolidated Fund-saw no reason why the compensations, which were for Irish purposes, should not be paid out of the surplus. Sir F. Heygate, having assented to the Presbyterian compensation, held himself bound in honour to support the clause.

Mr. Henley denied that it was an Irish purpose to relieve the British taxpayer of a charge of over a million.

Mr. Bright predicted that if the amendment were carried, Maynooth would get no compensation, and vigorously denounced it as a special manifestation of that hostility to the Roman Catholics which had always distinguished the Conservative party.

Mr. Disraeli explained that, though he had given notice of his intention to omit clause 36 (the Regium Donum compensations), he had not thought it necessary to provoke two discussions on the same point. He declared himself in favour of large and liberal compensations, to be taken from the Exchequer, as every body last year understood they would be.

After several other speeches had been delivered, the House went to a division, which resulted in a majority in favour of the clause of 126.

Mr. Sinclair Aytoun, who had taken a leading part in opposing the arrangements relative to Maynooth, then proposed another amendment, substituting for the grant of a fixed sum a plan of compensating the individual life interests of the professors and students. In support of it he maintained that the clause virtually amounted to a re-endowment of the College, and that the Roman

[1869. Catholics were treated with exceptional liberality. Other members followed in support of the same view. In answer to them,

Mr. Gladstone denied that the sum proposed to be given to Maynooth was an endowment in any sense different from that in which the Episcopalians and Presbyterians were endowed. He preferred to describe it as a payment to enable Maynooth to pass through a state of transition. Protesting against being called on to chaffer over £ s. d. at this point of the controversy, he went at length into the statistics of the compensation, showing in the end that there was only a difference of 40,000l. or 50,0007. between the Government plan and the suggestions of Mr. Aytoun. As to the mode chosen by the Government, he maintained that they had no choice, for it was not possible to deal directly with the professors and students, and he denied emphatically that the Roman Catholics had been treated more liberally than the Episcopalians and Presbyterians. Finally, as Trinity College must avowedly be dealt with, he warned its friends to be careful how they laid down principles which, a twelvemonth hence, might be pressed against them.

Ultimately, Mr. Aytoun's amendment was lost by a majority of 107, and other amendments to this portion of the Bill were also negatived.

Then came that most controverted question, the disposal of the surplus, always regarded as one of the most difficult problems raised by the Bill. These clauses gave rise to a strong conflict of opinions. Various counter-proposals were made to the proposition of the Bill to appropriate it to hospitals and other eleemosynary purposes. Mr. Pim suggested that it should be devoted first to the building of glebe-houses for the Episcopalian clergy; next, for the Roman Catholic priests; and, lastly, for the Presbyterian ministers. Mr. Whalley had an amendment, to pay over the whole surplus to the National Debt Commissioners; and Mr. Fawcett proposed to use it either for the development of education in Ireland, or in the reform of the tenure of land. None of these propositions were pressed to a division; but Mr. Pim's gave rise to a short discussion on the principle of the Bill. Mr. Bourke, in supporting it, gave as a reason that it tended towards concurrent endowment, on which principle, he maintained, the question ought to have been approached, and on which the Irish Church might have been converted into an unassailable institution. It was the exigencies of Mr. Gladstone's alliances which had prevented this, though he admitted that it was not popular on his own side.

Mr. Gladstone observed that the popular sentiment in the three kingdoms forbade a settlement on this principle of concurrent endowment, as Mr. Bourke, indeed, had admitted by his observation about "political alliances." As to the amendment, though he neither blamed it nor violently opposed it, he pointed out that it was totally opposed to the principles of the Bill and to the arrangements already made for the glebe-houses.

After a long discussion, during which the principle of concurrent

endowment was much debated, Mr. Pim's amendment was withdrawn.

Sir F. Heygate proposed to strike out of the clause the hospitals, reformatories, and other institutions which might fall under the influence or management of religious societies, and to confine the application of the surplus to infirmaries and lunatic asylums, which, he said, would entirely absorb it.

This amendment received little or no support. Mr. Gregory moved another, providing that the surplus should go in exoneration of the poor-rate, and not of the county-cess, but this also was not pressed.

The portion of the Bill which had been reserved to the last related to the appointment and powers of the Commissioners, by whom the operation of the transfer of the endowments was to be conducted. Mr. Gladstone had previously announced the names of those whom he intended to propose, viz. Viscount Monck, Mr. Justice Lawson, of the Irish Court of Queen's Bench, and Mr. G. W. Hamilton, then one of the Secretaries to the Treasury. These nominations were favourably received by the House, and at length, on the 7th of May, the clauses of the Bill which had undergone such lengthened and anxious controversy, were declared to have passed through Committee.

On the moving of the Report some clauses were added. The only contention of any importance arose on a clause moved by Sir Roundell Palmer, providing that the annuities granted under the Act shall not be forfeited because the annuitants do not consent to alterations which may be made in the Articles of the Church.

Mr. Gladstone, though admitting that the clergy had a right to this protection if they asked it, deprecated it as likely to lead to anarchy and confusion in the Church. As the opinion of Churchmen seemed to be divided, he suggested that the point should be left to the House of Lords to settle, to which Sir Roundell Palmer agreed.

Sir Roundell Palmer next proposed to leave out of the Preamble the words declaring that no part of the funds of the Church shall hereafter be applied "for the teaching of religion." He urged it as a matter of sentiment.

Mr. C. Fortescue replied, that as they had made up their minds to do the thing, it was misplaced delicacy not to say it.

Sir Roundell did not persevere; but, in withdrawing his notice, he expressed a hope that the Government would take up Mr. M'Evoy's Bill for repealing the Ecclesiastical Titles Act.

The motion for the final stage of the Bill, the third reading, was made on the 31st May, exactly three months from the time of its introduction in the House of Commons. The final demonstration against it was made by Mr. Holt, who moved that the third reading be deferred for six months. He said his object was to give the Conservative party an opportunity of freeing their consciences from all responsibility for a measure their objections to which had not been decreased by the long debates and its treatment in Committee.

F

The essential objection he took to it was the disruption it would effect of the connexion between Church and State, which he valued as securing the independence of the clergy and the freedom of the laity. The voluntary system about to be introduced into Ireland had failed in all but large and rich towns, and was utterly unsuited to that country; and referring to American decisions on questions of Church property, he asserted that if Ireland had been part of the United States, the Church might have been disestablished, but she would have retained her property. After complaining that no reason and no explanation had been given of the principles on which the Bill was founded-except that its authors had the power or the will to do the thing-he went on to examine the Bill in its present shape, objecting principally to its arbitrary character, the irresponsible power given to the Commission, and its complete subserviency to the Minister of the day, its harsh treatment of the Protestants, and its violation of last year's pledges. So far from being a message of peace, it would create internal discord; and in his peroration he condemned it as a political error, a social calamity, and a national crime.

Lord Elcho seconded the amendment. He regarded the Bill as the inauguration of a policy which would inevitably lead to the separation of Church and State in the three kingdoms; and discussing in an ironical vein the motives of its introduction, he remarked that whatever might be its effect in Ireland, it had "pacified" the Liberal party, and had reconciled what two years ago was thought to be irreconcilable. But he denied emphatically that it would produce peace in Ireland, where a firm and explicit declaration of policy on the land question would have produced a ten times more tranquillizing effect. Admitting that there was no power now which could resist the Bill, he declared that it would prove an utter failure for all the purposes of justice and religious equality it was supposed to have in view. It would alienate the Protestants, and prepare the way for an attack on the Act of Settlement. He attributed the policy on which it was founded to the influence of the "voluntary" party, and he regarded it as the instrument with which the aristocratic whigs had performed the ceremony of "happy despatch."

Mr. Cardwell held that, after all that had passed-the long debates of last year, the verdict of the elections, and the exhaustive arguments of this year-further debate must be unreal. But having formerly borne a share in the government of Ireland, he was unwilling to part with the Bill without expressing his sincere conviction that it was a great act of justice, that it would cement Ireland to Great Britain, and would strengthen the power of England among the nations of the world. It was the first step in the policy by which we had conciliated Scotland and Canada, once more alienated than Ireland, and in the end it would prove a most beneficial measure to the Church herself.

Sir F. Heygate entered his final protest against the Bill, which