Mr. WALPOLE, on the part of the government, wished
to make an early statement of the course they meant to
pursue. All agreed that this question, whether regarded
in a political or a social or a moral aspect, was one of the
utmost difficulty. Mr. Spooner's motion, for an inquiry
into the system of education at the college of Maynooth,
raised the question whether the grant had or had not
answered its purpose. There were two arguments against
inquiry—first, that the question was concluded in 1845,
and ought not to be reopened; second, that the grant
itself was so vicious in principle that it ought to be repealed
at once. With regard to the first, since parliament had
made the grant, parliament had a right to recall it.
When the grant was made perpetual in 1845, Sir R. Peel
stated two grounds for the measure—first, the poverty
hanging over the college; second, that it would break
up a formidable confederacy in Ireland against the British
government and British connection. There were three
purposes for which the grant was made—first, to secure
a well-educated, loyal, and domestic priesthood; second,
to provide funds for their instruction; and third, to break
up by generosity what Sir R. Peel termed a "formidable
confederacy." Then, had these, or any of these, purposes
been answered? This was a question which the house
was bound to consider before it determined whether or
not this committee should be granted. Had there been
a well-educated, loyal, domestic priesthood in Ireland?
Up to a certain time there may have been; but there
were strong reasons for believing that many of the priesthood
educated at this college were members of different
orders who do not remain a domestic priesthood. Had
not the character of the priesthood changed of
late years? He feared that instead of confining themselves,
as they ought to do, to the supporting of their
own religion, they had, in fact, assumed an aggressive
character. He alluded to what had taken place since
Dr. Cullen had come into Ireland. If the facts were so,
measures should be taken against an application of the
public money to any other than its legitimate purpose—
to provide a well-educated, loyal, and domestic priesthood.
The grant had been intended by Sir R. Peel
as a messenger of peace; it was made in a liberal and
confiding spirit; and he would ask any man if the system
of education at Maynooth had had the tendency designed
by Sir R. Peel. These were the reasons which induced the
government to think that some inquiry ought to be made
—namely, that the conditions of the grant had not been
adequately fulfilled, and that the objects for which it
was made no longer existed to the same extent. He
thought, therefore, that the country had a right to ask,
and that the house was bound to consent to an inquiry,
and by the results of that inquiry his own opinion would
abide.—Mr. OSBORNE denounced this as a mean attempt to
raise a "No Popery" cry with which to go to the hustings.
The object was to destroy the Roman Catholic religion,
and he would not be a party to a one-sided attack upon
that faith, and a direct insult upon the Roman Catholics
of Ireland. The house ought not to have its time wasted
and its passions excited by such subjects.—Mr.
GLADSTONE said that although he did not contend that
parliament was bound by any compact to maintain the
grant, yet, unless it could be shown that the objects of
the endowment had failed, and the expectations
entertained at the time of the endowment had been frustrated,
both prudence and justice demanded the maintenance of
the grant; and it appeared to him that such failure could
not be shown. If the endowment was to be withdrawn,
the parliament that withdrew it must be prepared to
enter upon the whole subject of the reconstruction of
ecclesiastical arrangements in Ireland. He did not say
whether this would be right or wrong, but it was the
necessary as well as the logical consequence of the course
upon which the house was entering. No serious case
had, in his opinion, been made out to prove the failure
of the endowment; not a single student had left Maynooth
since the enlargement of the grant; he should, therefore,
have preferred the delay of the inquiry until a later
period. At the same time, when a motion of this kind
was made, he thought the friends of Maynooth should
cast no obstacles in its way. Prudence and justice,
however, prescribed limits to the inquiry. The mover
and his seconder looked upon inquiry simply as a means
of establishing certain charges upon which they had
made up their minds, as a step to the repeal of the grant.
But a select committee appointed upon the motion of
gentlemen expressing such sentiments could not be
intrusted with such an inquiry. It was a national
question, and in all preceding cases had been dealt with
by the executive government, and he proposed that this
inquiry should be conducted under the immediate
superintendence and responsibility of the executive government.
—Mr. GRATTAN and Mr. HUME opposed the motion.—
Lord PALMERSTON stated the grounds upon which he
intended to vote against both the original motion and
the amendment. He thought that the house was entering
upon an unwise course, and which, if the motion
should be agreed to, must either end in a nullity or lead
to dangerous consequences. No ground had been laid
for the motion, the object of which was to withdraw the
grant—a course which would not abolish ultramontane
influence in Ireland, but on the contrary, would force
the Irish priesthood to seek education abroad. He
believed the motion had arisen from feelings out of
doors, which had unfortunately been aroused amongst
the protestants of this country by what he should never
shrink from characterising as the aggressive and unjustifiable
proceedings of the court of Rome. But let not the
house visit this act upon the catholic youth of Ireland
intended for the ministry, which would be as impolitic as
it was unjust. It appeared to him that the motion was
one of vengeance, and if so, it was at variance with all
sound principles of national policy, and on that ground
he resisted it.—The debate was adjourned until that day
week.

On Wednesday the 12th, the debate on Mr. M.
Gibson's three resolutions concerning the Paper Duty,
the Newspaper Stamp Duty, and the Advertisement
Duty, adjourned from the 22nd of April, was resumed.
Mr. COWAN explained the nature of the restrictions
peculiarly applicable to the manufacture of paper; the
tendency of which, he said , was to obstruct improvements.
The excise duty fell with great severity upon certain
branches of this manufacture—cards, boards, boxes, and
packages for British articles exported—and the vexatious
processes of supervision occasioned a further outlay.
But for the depressing and crushing effect of these duties
and restrictions, the paper manufacture would have
attained a far greater extension than it now had.—Mr.
GLADSTONE said, although he should be heartily glad
when the time came at which the duty on paper could be
repealed, on the present occasion such a proposal could
not be entertained. There were, however, so many
interesting circumstances connected with this duty that
it was a question which might be very usefully discussed
in the house. One branch of the trade particularly
deserved its attention—namely, the consumption of
paper in the printing of literary works. A most important
struggle was going on in the book trade, and though
it would be very unjust at present to bear hard upon
publishers and booksellers, who had consented to refer
the subject to the judgment of certain distinguished
personages, he must say, it was a great evil that the
cost of books should be raised so much above what
might be termed the natural price; and the whole
state of the book market of this country was a disgrace
to it. Monopoly and combination had been so long
applied to this trade as nearly to reduce it to its
minimum. With the exception of the works of certain
highly esteemed and distinguished authors, the sale of
what were called new publications, in an enormous
majority of cases, scarcely ever exceeded 500 copies, and
the great mass did not pay expenses. What was the
consequence? The sale of such new publications was
limited in a great measure to circulating libraries and
book-clubs, which were ingenious expedients to mitigate
the evil of the high prices of books. The effect of this
system was to raise artificially the cost of printing, and
to interfere generally with the natural play of supply
and demand, whilst it gave encouragement to piratical
practices. If the paper duty were taken off, we ought
to be the cheapest producers and largest consumers of
books in the world, whereas now the demand was
narrower and the prices of books were higher in this
than in any other country.—The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
gave an exposition of his official duty in relation to
prosecutions for evasion of the stamp duties, and of the