been bound. Assisted by the hesitancy and aristocratical prepossessions of the Whigs, he will find this party steadily gathering strength, recruiting itself by desertions from their ranks, adroitly availing itself of their blunders, obstructing many good measures, and rendering cordial support to every bad one, until at length, their rivals having worn out the patience of a deluded people, the triumph was completed in their own accession to

power.

Such an investigator will naturally look to the subsequent history of this party for an illustration and enforcement of the views advocated in opposition. It would be deemed an insult to their memory-an indignity and a wrong, to suppose that in the one case they would belie all the professions they had made in the other,—that their passion for office could be so intense, their recklessness of principle so marked, as to induce them to do the work of the free-trader, or to fraternize with the dissenter, the jew, and the catholic. And yet, what other conclusion will he be able to form after a patient and laborious examination of the facts of the case. The elements composing this party consisted of the modern representatives of the old Tory school, and the pledge they gave to the country was that of protection to monopoly, whether in the senate, the market, or the church. This pledge was uttered in every form of speech, and was reiterated on all occasions. Every possible sanction was given to the faith of their credulous adherents. Men of the highest note and of the most authoritative position amongst them, those who were known to be in the confidence of their leader,-nay, that leader himself, at sundry times, when he deemed it befitting to disclose his purpose, bound himself hand and foot to work out the policy which had cramped the industrial energies of the people, and fed the bigotry and intolerance of a protestant hierarchy. These were the professions made, the good tidings which cheered the drooping spirits of the squirearchy and the priests. There was a revival, in appearance at least, of ancient loyalty; not, indeed, to the person of the monarch, but to those interests for the maintenance of which alone the monarchy was deemed important. Sir Robert Peel and his associates were summoned to a special vocation. It was theirs to arrest the revolutionary course of events, to throw back the tide of democracy, to protect the home market from foreign competition, and above all to guard the established church from the profane hands of infidels, dissenters, and catholics. They took office on these conditions; their advent to power was hailed on this account. They were to be the regenerators of their times, the honest, unflinching, and always-consistent friends of the agricultural interest and of the protestant ascen

dancy. And yet what have we seen? How have these promises been fulfilled, these pledges redeemed, this line of policy worked out? What has been the result of the vast and costly efforts which were made to secure their triumph? For the honour of our common nature, we are ashamed to reply to our own inquiries. There was little faith in public men left amongst us, before this last and most disgraceful defection; but he must be strangely ignorant of the universal conviction of the people, who now ventures, with a grave countenance, to descant on the integrity of politicians, or to calculate on public virtue interposing any barrier to their possession of power. The great mass of the people would laugh to scorn the man who should so attempt to delude them; or would deem him so simple-minded and uninformed, as to be fit only for the regions of the moon.

We are far from thinking this a light matter. It weighs heavily on our spirits, and throws a shade over the prospects of our country which we would gladly see removed. The reputation of our statesmen is public property, which cannot be damaged without the nation being a loser. It is no mere personal thing, but a deep fixed inherent evil, which will show itself in a thousand morbid forms throughout the body politic. Whatever impairs the credit or destroys confidence in the integrity of our rulers, weakens public morals, and facilitates the progress of anarchy and scepticism. The national mind resents in such circumstances the semblance of virtue as an insult to its common sense, and either ceases to feel interest in public affairs, or looks about it for a new and more trustworthy set of political leaders. There is much to incline it to the former course, in which case its liberties are sacrificed to an unprincipled oligarchy: whilst the latter requires an enlightened estimate of its rights, and a conscientious determination to maintain them.

That some of the measures of Sir Robert Peel have been in a right direction we freely admit, but this admission impairs not the force of our regret, at the irreparable injury he has done to the reputation of public men. The benefits of his administration are his disgrace as a tory minister. The boon which he confers is bestowed at the cost of his official integrity. He has not the manliness either to abide by his former professions, or to avow the change which circumstances have forced upon him, but is content to exercise the dictatorship of a party, at the price of carrying the measures of his opponents.

A singular illustration of this is afforded in the Bill which he has just submitted to parliament. To this measure, then in prospect, we referred last month, and now recur to the subject with feelings of earnest solicitude to discharge our duty as public journalists in what we deem a momentous crisis.

On the 3rd of April, the premier moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Acts relating to the College of Maynooth, and in the speech with which he prefaced his motion detailed the immediate changes which he contemplated, without committing himself to an opinion, yea or nay, respecting the ulterior measures which might grow out of them. On these he observed a discreet if not an honourable silence, and our main business therefore at present is to ascertain the precise nature of the proposition which he submitted to the House, and the lessons to be derived from the reception with which it met.

The measure of the premier involved three things. In the first place it is provided That the trustees of the said college or seminary' (we copy from the Bill) 'and their successors for ever, shall be one body politic and corporate, by the name of 'The Trustees of Maynooth,' and by that name shall have perpetual succession and a common seal.'' This corporation is empowered, notwithstanding the statutes in mortmain, to purchase and enjoy property, whether real or personal, to the extent of £3,000 a year, exclusive of the property already acquired by the trustees. This is a large extension of the power previously enjoyed, and gives a fixed and legal character to the institution, deserving of grave consideration.

The next point respects the provision to be made for the salaries of professors and the support of students, and here we shall best compass our object, which is a fair statement of the premier's case, by quoting his own words as reported in the Times' of April 4th :

:

'I next address myself,' he remarked, 'to the provision to be made for the chief officers of the college. We propose that there should be a more liberal salary as compared with the present stipend of the president and professors. As I before said, the stipend of each individual professor does not now exceed £122 per annum. Instead of defining exactly what shall be the amount paid to each professor, we propose to allot to the trustees of Maynooth a certain sum, which shall be placed at their discretion for the payment of salaries. That sum will admit of a payment of £600 or £700 per annum to the president of the college; of £260 or £270 to the professors of theology; and of £220 to £230 to the other professors. We propose, therefore, that a sum not exceeding £6000 shall be allotted to the trustees for making provision for the officers of the institution. With regard to the students, I would just remind the house that the college, generally speaking, is divided into two departments. The senior department consists of three senior classes of what may be called divinity students, and are the persons from whom a selection is immediately made for the Roman Catholic priesthood. In the subordinate division of the college there are four classes. In addition to these two departments are twenty senior students, who

have passed through the college course with peculiar credit, called the Dunboyne students, because Lord Dunboyne bequeathed about £500 a-year towards their support. They are selected by the president, and allowed to remain three years; and each one is allowed £55 a-year, of which sum £25 goes to the college for the student's support. There are at present about four hundred and thirty stu dents in the college, divided into these three classes: the Dunboyne students, the three senior classes and the four junior classes. We propose to allot to each of the Dunboyne students-that is, to twenty Dunboyne students, the sum of £40 each per annum. We propose to make provision on the whole for five hundred free students-that there shall be two hundred and fifty students in the four junior classes, and two hundred and fifty in the three senior classes, those being divinity students. That is to say, there are to be twenty Dunboyne students, and five hundred comprised within the two great depart ments. We propose that for the maintenance of each student, to cover the expense of his commons, attendance, and other charges, consequent upon academical education, a sum shall be placed at the disposal of the trustees, calculated on an average of £28 per annum for each student. We propose that to each of the students in the three senior classes, the sum of £20 per annum for their own personal expenses shall be allowed separately. This will require a very considerable sum. For the salaries of the professors, for the provision of a library, and for other expenses of that nature, that a sum not exceeding £6,000. For the twenty Dunboyne students at £40, the sum of £800 will be required. The allowance for the maintenance of five hundred students in the two departments, and of the twenty Dunboyne students, at £28 each, will amount to £14,560. The allowance of £20 each to the divinity students in the three senior classes will make £5,000. Thus we have a total for the annual charge on account of the establishment of £26,360. not be in addition to the present vote, but including it.'

That will

The other point respects the repair and enlargement of the college building, for which a grant of £30,000 is proposed, with an additional charge in perpetuo, for the repairs of the same, to be included in the annual estimates of the Board of Works.

Such is, in brief, the measure now submitted to the British parliament, and it only remains, in order that the case be clearly understood, that the visitorial powers created by the Bill should be explained. Referring to these, Sir Robert remarked:

With respect to the visitorial powers of the college at present, for the ordinary purposes of education, it is exercised by certain judges, by parties who either were originally appointed by the Act of 1795, or have been since elected to fill up vacancies as they have occurred since that time. Now our opinion is that ex officio visitors are incompetent. We propose that the lord chancellor and the judges should be relieved from this duty, and that her Majesty shall

have the power to appoint five visitors, in addition to the elected visitors. But then we do not propose that those visitors so appointed shall exercise any powers of visitation other than the present visitors do. We propose, however, that there shall be bond fide visitations, and that they shall take place as a matter of course, annually, instead of triennially as is now the case. We propose also that the lord lieutenant should have the power of directing a visitation whenever he may think proper. But observe the visitorial powers shall not extend to any matter relating to the doctrine or discipline of the church of Rome. We will not spoil this Act by any attempt at undue interference with such matters. Indeed, it would be utterly ineffective for any good purpose. But no alteration will be made in the visitorial powers, which are to remain and be exercised as at present in all matters which relate to the exercise, doctrine, and discipline of the Roman catholic church. This visitorial power, however, cannot be exercised except by three visitors elected by the other visitors; and those three must be members of the Roman catholic church.'

We have thus succinctly stated the leading features of a measure, which, to the astonishment of all thoughtful men, the leader of the conservative party has commended to the adoption of the legislature. The excitement which has followed cannot well be overrated. It extends through all classes, partakes of various hues, and expresses itself,-sometimes in language of the fiercest intolerance, sometimes of an alarmed and unreflecting piety, and at others of an enlightened conviction of the folly and wickedness of the secular power attempting to legislate in matters of religion. Were we to judge of the measure from the arguments which-with two or three honourable exceptions were adduced against it, in the Commons House, we should unhesitatingly give it our support, for any thing more flimsy or exceptionable, than the reasoning and spirit with which it has been met, we have never witnessed. It is marvellous that our senators should have retained to the middle of the nineteenth century, so many of the dogmas and so much of the spirit of the most intolerant age, and we may well be thankful, in view of the revelation thus afforded, for the protective influences which exempt us from the sufferings experienced by our fathers. If we had to choose between the intolerant bigotry so unblushingly avowed, and the latidunarianism on which the ministerial project is based, we should not hesitate in our preference of the latter. In comparison, it is innocuous, and contains within itself some corrective elements, tending ultimately to the overthrow of the system which it temporarily extends. But we are not reduced to any such alternative. We protest against the measure as vicious in principle, incompatible with the legitimate provin