Page images
PDF
EPUB

Not of the Cabinet. The Right Hon. George Tierney

S President of the Board of Control

for the Affairs of India Earl of Derby

Chancellor of the Duchy of Lan

caster Lord Auckland

President of the Board of Trade
Right Hon. Richard Fitzpatrick Secretary at War
Right Hon. Rd. Brinsley Sheridan Treasurer of the Navy
Earl Temple
Lord John Townshend

Joint Paymasters-General
Earl of Buckinghamshire
Earl of Carysfort

Joint Paymasters-General
Right Hon. Nicholas Vansittart
William Henry Freemantle, Esq.

Secretaries of the Treasury
Sir William Grant

Master of the Rolls Sir Arthur Pigott

Attorney-General
Sir Samuel Romilly

Solicitor-General
Persons in the Ministry of Ireland.
His Grace the Duke of Bedford Lord Lieutenant
Right Hon. George Ponsonby Lord High Chancellor
Right Hon. William Elliot

Chief Secretary
Right Hon. Sir John Newport Chancellor of the Exchequer
Rt. Hon. Wm. Conyngham Plunkett Attorney-General
Charles Kendal Bushe, Esq.

Solicitor-General

.

GRANT TO THE COLLEGE OF MAYNOOTH.

February 20, 1807. THE House went into a Committee on the Irish Miscellaneous

Grants. Sir John Newport (Chancellor of the Exchequer for Ireland) moved the several sums in the respective estimates; and on the resolution that a sum of 50001. be granted for the Roman Catholic College of Maynooth, in addition to the sum of 80001. annually granted, which additional sum was for the construction of other buildings, and the further accommodation of the students of that university, Mr. Percival and Mr. Bankes objected to this additional grant, declaring that they were against the policy of giving any encouragement to the growth of the Roman Catholic religion. Sir John Newport, Mr. H. A. Herbert, and Mr. Grattan supported the motion. Roman Catholics had not been permitted to enter the Dublin University prior to 1793, and Catholic clergymen could not be instructed there ; it was, therefore, necessary to establish a college where they might receive their education, freed from the effects of foreign influence and tendencies : the Irish Parliament had, therefore, established this seminary in the year 1795, and had supported it by annual grants ever since. The increase of the population required a greater number of clergymen, and to afford this supply was the object of the additional grant.

Mr. GRATtan said, that the question lay within a narrow compass; whether the Roman Catholic was to go abroad, form foreign connections, involve himself in foreign relations, and bring home foreign affections to his country? or whether . he was to remain in his native land, and there acquire the instruction he was there to disseminate ? If this could be as well effected in the college of Dublin, he should rejoice at it; for he would ever wish to see the Catholic and Protestant walking hand in hand together; he would wish to have them acting in such co-operation as to have in common the one grand impulse, and the one grand end. But the expense of instruction was complained of! What was the expense ? 13,0001.: and what was got hy that 13,0001.? the instruction of three millions and a half of people: to refuse this would be more than economy; it would be worse than parsimony. Keep the Roman Catholic at home; home education will promote allegiance; foreign education cannot engender loyalty. Kept at home, and taught to love his country, he must revere its government.

The resolutions were then agreed to, and the report ordered to be received on Monday.

GRANT TO MAYNOOTH COLLEGE.

March 4. 1807.

ON this day Mr. Hobhouse brought up the report of the Commit

tee of Supply: the grants for the service of Ireland were read and agreed to. The grant of 13,0001. to the Roman Catholic Seminary of Maynooth being read, Mr. Percival rose and objected to it : he said it was not the amount of the sum, but the growing nature of the demand. The annual grant had been 80001., and no good ground was shown for the increase. It was not too much to assume, that the interests of the Protestant University appeared sacrificed to the Catholic seminary, and greater benefit would have resulted from enlarging the Dublin University, than from building a separate institution. He concluded by moving, “ that the sum of 80001. be substituted for the sum of 13,0001., at present inserted in the resolution of the committee.” This was supported by Mr. Wilberforce and Mr. Bankes. The latter said, that he thought the establishment should be supported from private contributions, as other institutions in both countries; the state should not be made party to such an establishment, or be encumbered by it, as it would make popery rival the esta shed church. Mr. W berforce said, that the institution in question tended to discourage the growth of Protestantism in Ireland, and he could not favour an

VOL. IV.

H

establishment which would prevent the propagation of that religion. The grant was supported by Sir John Newport, Lord Mahon, Lord

Howick, Mr. May, and Mr. Grattan. They argued, that the institution had been supported by grants from Parliament since the year 1795 ; that the present state of the continent rendered it impossible for the Roman Catholics to go abroad for their education, were it even politic that they should do so; therefore, if if such an establishment was not supported, they would not receive any education at all. Lord Howick said, that Parliament had too long neglected to take the situation of Ireland seriously into consideration. I confess we are deeply criminal for the part we have acted, but I hope we shall begin to discharge the long arrear against us. For my part, I candidly own I shall feel that the proudest and the happiest day of my existence, when I am able to set about the work for making up the time which has been misspent with

respect to Ireland. Mr. GRATTAN said, that, in a question of this kind, that involved the education of a great portion of the population of the empire, any sect of Christians should be tolerated, as any sect of religion was better than no religion at all. He was astonished to hear from an honourable gentleman over the way, that if the Roman Catholics of Ireland were to be educated in the principles of their faith, it was little matter whether they received that education in Ireland or in France. He was surprised to hear this, because it went to say, that it was immaterial whether three millions of the king's own subjects were educated at the expense and under the protection of His Majesty's government, or whether they should be pensioners on the bounty of the Emperor of France. From the jealousy hitherto entertained of the growth of Catholicism, that jealousy was founded not upon the mere doctrine, not against it as a religion, but against its foreign views, its foreign connections, its foreign relations. But here the objection was changed; no danger was apprehended from those foreign relations; the Roman Catholic might go abroad; but if kept at home, if educated in the bosom of his country, then he would be dangerous. Was this the doctrine ? If it was, let it only be repeated in order to be refuted. And if it was not, if foreign connections were dangerous, why promote those views and strengthen those connections, by exiling the Roman Catholic for the purpose of educating him ?. As to economy, 43,0001. had been just voted to the Protestant charter-schools ; 21,0001. voted to the Foundling Hospital; that is, with a ready hand, 21,0001, had been given to the crimes of the depraved, and it was to be disputed whether 13,000l. was to be given to enlighten and to instruct three millions of a bold and hardy pea, santry. Why grant so much freely to the Protestant, and why

dispute the little to the Catholic ? Did not this do that which was complained of? Did it not encourage the rivalry so much apprehended, by setting up one religion against another; and was it justice so to do? He had heard it apprehended that the institution might tend to encourage the Roman Catholic professors in that seminary, in the latent dissemination of disloyalty: was it remembered that that seminary was subject to the control of visitors, the chancellor and the judges of the land, and under their control nothing in that way could be apprehended ? He wished gentlemen to look more largely at the institution; it originated in wisdom, and would be productive of good.

The original resolution was then put and carried.

Change of Ministers. In consequence of the refusal of Ministers to agree to an unconstitutional pledge, and bind themselves not to propose to His Majesty any further concessions to the Roman Catholics, His Majesty thought proper to select new Ministers; and the following individuals were appointed:

GREAT BRITAIN. President of the Council, Earl Camden Lord High Chancellor, Lord Eldon Lord Privy Seal, Earl of Westmoreland First Lord of the Treasury, Duke of Portland First Lord of the Admiralty, Lord Mulgrave Master-General of the Ordnance, Earl of Chatham Secretary of State for the Home Department, Lord Hawksbury (since

Earl of Liverpool) Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Canning Secretary of State for Department of War and the Colonies, Viscount Castlereagh

od Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench, Lord Ellenborough Chancellor and Under Treasurer of the Exchequer, Mr. Percival President of the Board of Control for the Affairs of India, Right Hon.

Robert Saunders Dundas Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Right Hon. Spencer Percival President of the Board of Trade, Earl Bathurst Secretary at War, Sir James Pulteney Treasurer of the Navy, Right Hon. Richard Brinsley Sheridan Joint Paymasters-General, Lord Charles Somerset, Right Hon. Charles

Long Joint Postmasters-General, Earl of Chichester, Earl of Sandwich Secretaries of the Treasury, W. Huskisson, Esq., Hon. Henry Wellesley Master of the Rolls, Sir William Grant Attorney-General, Sir Vicary Gibbs Solicitor-General, Sir Thomas Plomer

IRELAND. Lord Lieutenant, Duke of Richmond Lord High Chancellor, Lord Männers

Chief Secretary, Sir Arthur Wellesley (afterwards Duke of Wellington)
Chancellor of the Exchequer, Right Hon. John Foster
Attorney-General, Mr. William Šaurin
Solicitor-General, Mr. Charles Kendal Bushe

CHANGE OF ADMINISTRATION.

MR. BRAND'S MOTION RESPECTING THE CAUSES WHICH LED TO

THE LATE CHANGE OF MINISTERS,

1

April 9. 1807.
THE late ministers having introduced a bill to open the army

and navy to the Dissenters and Roman Catholics, the measure did not meet the approbation of the king, and it was required from them, that the subject should not be again brought before His Majesty ; to such a proposition the ministers could not accede, and a change accordingly took place.

On the 26th of March, when the House was to adjourn for the recess, Lord Howick took that opportunity to state the causes which led to the change in administration. It appeared that it had been the intention of ministers to introduce a bill for the purpose of admitting Dissenters and Roman Catholics to commissions in the army and navy; the substance of this bill was communicated to the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, and a draught of the dispatch was previously laid before His Majesty on the 9th of February. To that His Majesty expressed his dissent: the cabinet deliberated: upon the answer, and on the 10th made another representation to His Majesty, to which an answer was returned, expressing consi. derable reluctance, but signifying the consent of His Majesty – his positive assent. The dispatch was then sent to Ireland : a doubt arose there among the Catholics, whether this bill, which was to apply to both islands, admitted Catholics into all ranks of the army, or whether it was limited by the restrictions in the Irish Act of 1793. Another dispatch was sent to the Lord-lieutenant, with the clauses intended to be introduced into the mutiny bill; and expressly marking, that the Catholics were to be admitted to hold any commission or appointment whatever. This dispatch was previously sent to His Majesty on the 2d of March; and having been perused by the king, it was returned the next morning without a word of objection or comment; it was then sent to Ireland. Objections having arisen to the enactment of the proposed measure, by means of clauses in the mutiny bill, it was determined to introduce a separate bill for the purpose. On the 4th the king, at levee, asked Lord Howick, whether the separate bill was not to be the same as that of the Irish Act of Parliament ? Lord Howick stated where they differed ; on which His Majesty expressed his disapprobation of the measure ; but the conversation concluded by his giving a consent, though a reluctant one; or, as Lord Howick expressed it, by not withdrawing the consent he had ori,

« PreviousContinue »