THE MAYNOOTH GRANT. [From the Times, February 24.]

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume IX, Issue 828, 9 July 1853, Page 4

THE MAYNOOTH GRANT. [From the Times, February 24.]

Notwitbstanding.the impracticable character of; the Maynooth difficulty, and the somrictions generally, though perhaps reluctantly, entertained on the subject, it is in no degree surprising that . the question should create an annual debate of considerable warmth and- prolixity, W« believe ; that no statesman of distinction either admits or anticipates the expediency of reversing that Parliamentary resolution which endowed a Romish seminary with £30,000 a-year ; but the feelings of many independent members are strongly engaged to a contrary belief, and the tendency of public opinion in a like direction was incontestably evinced at the late elections. The choice, in fact, is a choice of evils ; but while the greater evil is prospective and remote, the lesser is ever presenLahd exasperating.' To comprehend and balance the arguments of, the debate the reader should bear in mind not only the historical circumstances of the case, but the leading principles at issue in the controversy. After the solemn and deliberate condemnation. of Popery by the English people, first W the Reformation, and next at the Revolution, of 1688, the Roman Catholics of the country were subjected to oppression and- persecution-, by. a Government which reflected the opinions ol the nation in suspecting their politics and'abhorring their creed. As time wore, on, and as Papists grew less formidable and Parliaments more tolerant, various measures, first of relief, next of emancipation, and eventually of support, were successively carried, until at length "the Maynooth endowment for the education of the Papist priesthood was sanctioned by the Legislature. The opposition which i these, proceedings encountered was- based on a combination of motives. A great religious party regarded the Romish faith' as idolatrous, anti-christian, and abominable ; a smaller political party desired to defend the old Protestant constitution of the country against this serious encroachment'; a more dispassionate class looked with misgiving to the practical operation'

of doctrines essentially irreconcileable with civil liberty and progress, while throughout the country were diffused certain indefinite traditions of jealousy and dislike which bad never ceased altogether to exist. In the event, however, the principles of religious freedom gained the day, and it was to compl< te this measure of conciliation that Maynooth College was first scantily, and afterwards liberally endowed by the State. It is now alleged that this endowment has failed in it* purpose, and that it ought to be revoked. In perusing the two days' debate upon this question the reader will discover the operation of all the original motives of opposition enumerated above ; nor can it be denied that experience ha* given them considerable additional warrant. Mr. Spooner is evidently actuated in no small degree* by the antipathy of religious conviction ; but ar the arguments thus suggested are no longer reputed tenable, he appeals to the House on themore popular ground of plain secular expediency, and endeavours to prove that the doctrines taught at a college endowed by the State are not only " antagonistic to the word ol God," but "injurious to the State itself, and completely subversive of the allegiance due to the Sovereign. " This accusation is encountered on the part of Roman Catholic members by an averment that nothing is taught at Maynooth but what the college was established to teach, that the .endowment implied no favour on one side or obligation on the other, and that it would be absurd to .suppose Roman Catholics bad accepted the means of instruction on the condition of making this instruction inefficient or unproductive. It is argued, in short, on one side, as if disappointment might naturally be felt at seeing that a well endowed Popish col- | lege had given ao impulse to Popery ; whereas it is retorted with more reason, on 'the other, that but for such a result the endowment would have been no boon to Papists at all. These assumptions will be found to comprise the substance of the speeches respectively delivered. Both sides, in our opinion, enjoy their own share of right. We believe entirely that the Popery oi Dr. M'Hale and Mr. Lucas is nothing in the world but the true Popery of the Romish church and the infallible fruit of Popish teaching. We acknowledge also that Popery is naturally encouraged by a seminary founded for encouraging it ; but, at the same time, it cannot be denied that tbesejprospective de velopements were carefully concealed at the time the endowment was proposed. The simple truth is that Papists, while struggling doubtfully against the instinctive repugnance of Englishmen to their tenets and practices, made large professions of innocence and good intent, disguised their views, reserved their designs, and received every instalment of relief with such expressions of thankfulness, as would lead most readily to another. Then, when the first check was given to their ambitious proceedings, they turned suddenly round, and availed themselves cf the vantage ground already gained to exert all their resources of hostility and annoyance. They verified to the letter every prediction which had been hazarded by the opponents of the measures for relief. After gratefully acccepting toleration and freedom for their religion, they pushed its pretensions higher and higher, till they are now demanding the reduction of the Established Church to their own level, and are but one step, in fact, from the assertion of supremacy. They have kept the Raman Catholic portions of the empire in greater agitation than before, have brought into conspicuous prominence the unnational features of their creed, have revived the most repulsive doctrines of " Popery" in its worst acceptation, have openly converted spiritual authority into secular influence, and have clamorously declared that they will regulate all their political duties by the interests of an ambitious priesthood. Mr. Lucas and bis friends maintain that this is a very natural and proper exemplification of their religion. We have no desire to contradict them ;on the contrary, we are of the same opinion.ourselves. We very much doubt whether in England, or indeed in any free Protestant country, a true Papist can be a good subject ; but if all this had been avowed seme years ago the opportunities of Popery would never have been what they are. And why, then, should such legislation, be perpetuated ? Or why, having discovered our error, should we not retrace our steps ? Simply because the error was not in our acts but in our expectations, and because none of the evils now rampant could be removed by the revocation proposed. What we are now -witnessing is the operation, not of educated Popery, but of Popery itself; and indeed Popery is so antagonistic to i education of all sorts that even a Maynooth college is better than no college at all. The unscrupulous and almost treasonable audacity of. Papist agitators results not from the endowment of a sei minary., but from the removal of all control by i the progress of religious liberty. Maynooth, indeed, has hardly been instituted long enough to affect the working priesthood of Ireland ; it is the freedom of thought and speech now prevailing on all subjects which produces the difference between 1830 and 1853. As to the existence of any irreversible " compact" between the Romish Church and the Legislature, we cannot understand bow such an argument could be maintained iv the face of doctrines so plainly avouched to the contrary on the question of the Canada reserves. We could revoke the Maynooth endowment without bad faitb, but not, in our opinion, with good reason or policy. None of the evils which we deplore are traceable to the fact that Popish priests are educated at home, end tbotfghthe doctrines of the school are detestable in English eyes, they are nothing but what we consented to admit when we sanctioned the establishment. The Popish religion is certainly a' fruitful source of political difficulty, but it is the religion of a considerable portion of the empire, and it caa certainly not be worse by the liberal education of its ministers. At tbe same time, while we are driven to the conclusion that Mr. Spooner'a arguments are inconsistent with tbe spirit of religious freeJom, and capable only of pr ctical application by tbe suppression, not merely of Maynooth college, but of Popery altogether, we cannot conceal from ourselves that the ineradicable antipathies of the English nation, exasperated to the utmost by the suicidal violence of Popish agitatators, may some day bring about a solution of this question in accordance rather with outraged feeliog than with patient and temperate reflection.