The Sun.
London, England, 1853-06-01 00:00:00

course to it was an institution which would have spread
blessings innumerable upon that unfortunate country, in
place of the destitution and dissension which had attended
its growth.
Mr. P. URQUHART supported the motion, replying at
some length to the arguments of Sir J. Young, and con-
tending that the evils of Ireland were mainly to be at-
tributed to the infliction upon her of an alien Church.
Sir R. INGLIS said that this was not a question of
numbers, but of right. The Irish Establishment was guar-
anteed y the Act of Union, which was unlike ordinary
acts, and contained clauses providing for their repeal or
alteration during the same session. It was a solemn treaty
between two nations previously independent. There was
now no Church of Ireland and no Church of England, but
there was the united, and, he trusted, the indivisible,
Church of England and Ireland. (Hear, hear.) This was
no mere paper treaty, but the very condition on which
Roman Catholic members sat in that house was their
solemn oath that they would not attempt to disturb the
property of the Church as it now existed. (Hear, hear.)
He did not defend the Church in Ireland merely as a ve-
hicle of affording spiritual instruction to the people, but
on account of the great social benefits which during the
late famine had been conferred on them by the ministers
of that Church with a self-denial that had never been ex-
ceeded and seldom equalled by those of any other faith.
(Hear, hear.) Dr. Chalmers, no bigoted member of the
Irish Church, had declared in unmistakeable terms in fa-
vour of that Church as the last hope of Ireland. He (Sir
R. Inglis) thought that she had had much reason to
complain, not of her adversaries, but of her pretended
friends, who had abused her highest offices to political pur-
poses. (Cheers.) Still he should be ashamed of himself if
he did not protest against the observations of the hon.
member who had spoken last ; for there was at least one
Beresford (the present primate) whose name alone would
be sufficient to dignify any church to which he was at-
tached. He could hardly conceive how any one reading
the act of union and the oath he had taken, could feel
himself justified in endeavouring to destroy the Church in
Ireland, merely because other members had set him an evil
example. Knowing what the general terms of the resolu-
tion meant from the tone of the speaker, and those by
whom it was supported, and regretting that it had not
been met by the Secretary for Ireland on the right ground,
he should give it the most unconditional opposition.
Mx. R. GARDNER was understood to say that great in-
jury had been inflicted on Ireland by the Established
Church. He attributed much of its political, social, and
moral evils to the penal enactments of the last century.
(Hear, hear.) He was opposed to establishments on prin-
ciple, much might be said in favour of the English
Church ; but nothing could excuse the exisience of such an
establishment as the Church of Ireland. (Hear.) Its ad-
vocates spoke as though convinced that they had a tho-
roughly bad cause. Though he should have preferred this
motion to have come from another quarter, he would give
it his cordial support ; and he hoped soon to see the time
when Catholic claims would be discussed on secular
grounds, and in a proper spirit. (Hear.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE said it was notorious that the
Church of Ireland was daily gaining strength in conse-
quence of the thousands who were quitting the Romish
Church. This was also the case in the United States.
And was this an argument for the destruction of the Pro-
testant Church, which was the real object of this motion ?
This was also the main object of the Synod of Thurles,
which was held under the direction of that Romish pre-
late who was the legate of the Pope in this country. (Hear,
and " No, no.")
Mr. M. O'CONNELL—I rise to order. We owe on
obedience to him. (Hear and laughter.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE said that at least those hon. mem-
bers were acting under his instructions.
Mr. G. MOORE said that he had had no such instruc-
tions.
Mr. NEWDEGATE—Then am I to understand that he
is not acting under the authority of Legate Cullen ? Has
he not the support of that Legato ? (Laughter.)
Mr. MOORE—I really don't know whether I have or
not. (Cheers.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE—The house ought to be acquainted
with that fact ; because I believe that the hon. member is
chairman of an association in Ireland especially rec•m-
mended by that legate. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. MOORE—That is not the case. (Cheers and
laughter.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE said he must certainly accept ,the
statement of the hon. member for Mayo, and would sup-
pose that_ he was acting in contravention of the authority
of the Pope's legate. (Laughter.) Still ho must contend
that this motion was brought forward under,the sanction
of the Roman Catholic prelates, and with a view to destroy
the Established Church. If this were denied, ho would
quote as authority a speech made by Dr. AP Hale in 1851, at
a dinner at Athlone, given to the present Solicitor-General
for Ireland (Mr. Keogh), in which he spoke of the never-
ceasing spring of Irish calamity being about to be dried up,
meaning the Established Church. This motion was designed
to striae at every Protestant sect in Ireland, though aimed
direitly at the Established Church. (" No, no," from Mr.
Moore.) The hon. member said he was an advocate for
religious equality ; but was there ever an instance of the
Romish church having been content with such equality?
The present Pope had issued an allocution, directed to
Spain, in which he declared that every other worship
ought to'be removed and interdicted—(hear, hear)—and
that all the magistrates of the kingdom ought to enforce
due respect to the ecclesiastical authorities.
Mr. O'CONNELL again rose to order, and protested
against any allusion to the Roman Catholic churches of
other countries. (Hear, hear, and cries of "order.")
Mr. NEWDEGATE referred to the late events in Tus-
cany, and said that the same allocution provided for the
suppression of other forms of worship in that kingdom.
The same arrangement had been made there as in Spain
for the enforcement of the temporal power in obedience to
the spiritual authority. The result was seen in the perse-
cution of the Mulled. The same spirit was at work in Ire-
land as in other countries where the Protestants were in a
minority ' • and this motion was evidently part of au
organised plan to subvert the Established Church. The
hon. gentleman (Mr. Moore) at the same dinner to which
he referred had laid clown a rule for the guidance of the
" Irish brigade," which was to deal impartial vengeance
between Whigs and Tories. That was an exposition of the
policy which had dictated this motion. The hon. gentle-
man and those who had acted with him sought to form a
party which should embarrass all Governments alike, until
they attained their object. (Hear, hear) They sought to
destroy the constitutional action of that house, in order
to destroy the Protestant liberty of Ireland. This inten-
tion was no secret; it hill been declared for years; and
knowing the object with which this motion was proposed,
he would give it the most decided opposition.
Mr. J. PHILLIMORE said, the simple question was
whether the Irish Church, as at present constituted, ful-
filled the high and important function of administering to
the spiritual wants of the Irish people. The result of his
inquiries led him to believe that the source of animosities
in Ireland was to be found in religious discord and reli-
gious inequality.
Mr. R. MOORE resisted the motion, contending that
the revenues of the Irish Church were barely sufficient for
the spiritual wants of the people.
Mr. H. DRUMMOND observed!that no one could know
anything of the Irish Church without knowing that in it
there were as disgusting instances of nepotism as even in
the Church of Rome. But the question was whether the
state of the Irish Church was such as that the people ought
to be satisfied. Almost every statesman who had been dis-
tinguished in that house had held that it was not. Many
years ago ho had suggested a plan to Sir R. Peel, but that
right hon. baronet had rejected it ; andshe afterwards
offered it to the noble lord (J. Russell), but he also showed
it the cold shoulder. (A laugh.) That plan, which he
still believed to be founded on substantial justice, was that
the whole ecclesiastical revenues of Ireland should be divided
between the Protestants and Catholics, according to their
numbers in the several parishes, and that in those parishes
where there were no Protestant inhabitants they should go
to the Roman Catholics. He would ask those hon. gentle-
men who saw no grievance in the present state of the Irish
Church why it was that they did not hold the same lan-
guage in regard to the Church of Scotland ? When hon.
gentlemen urged that this was not a question of expediency
and when they rejected altogether the carnal view and ap-
pealed to their consciences, he would ask, was not cons-
science as strong on the other side the Tweed as on the
other side of St. George's Channel ? This was his difficulty
—he could not understand how it was they practised one
thing in regard to Ireland and another thing in regard to
Scotland. He thought the time had come when the ques-
tion should be placed on a more secure and better footing.
They had heard much about the ambition of the Popish
priests. The Popish priests were as they had ever been ;
but did they suppose the laymen were going to be such
fools as to lend themselves to their ambiti•us designs?
They did not find the Roman Catholic laymen quite so obe-
dient in France or Italy. He observed one hon. member
had a notice upon the paper, the object of which was to
obtain the removal of the French troops from Rome, but
was he not aware that that would be tantamount to the
priests in Rome having their throats cut ? (Laughter.) He
would say, refuse to the Roman Catholic priests or laymen
that which they demanded unjustly, but do not refuse
either priests or laymen that which they justly demand.
Mr. MAGUIRE considered that not only the represen-
tatives for Ireland, but English members also were indebted
to the hon. member for Mayo for bringing forward this
motion. That motion was not to destroy the Established
Church in Ireland, but merely to inquire with the view of
ascertaining how far the revenue of that Church could be
made applicable to the benefit of the Irish people. And
who were the people of Ireland ? Surely the majority—
the 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 Catholics, rather than the
800,000 Protestants. It was contrary to the spirt of the Act
of Union to force, by the power of this country, a Church
upon Ireland which was not the church of the majority,
but only that of a small minority. The argument that no
one should contribute to the support of a faith in which
they did not believe was used by the opponents of the grant
to Maynooth, and the Roman Catholics of Ireland were
equally entitled to protest against money being taken out
of their pockets to support a church to which they did not
belong. He (Mr. Maguire) disclaimed being a member of
what was called the Brigade, but was an independent Irish
member, sent to that house, not by the Pope or Dr, Cullen,
but by those who wished him to act fairly towards all par-
ties, whether Tory or Whig, if they did justice to his coun-
try. The motion now made was only for inquiry—and A
fair case had been made out for inquiry—into the revenues
of a church which in Ireland caused dissension where peace
and union ought to prevail.
Mr. WHITESIDE observed, that, if this had been a
motion by a member of the Church of the Reformation,
pointing out abuses, it should have his support ; but, coin-
ing, as it did, from one who had openly advocated the
selling the whole property of the Church by auction, and
vesting the proceeds in trustees, and looking at the speeches
of its supporters, it could not be doubted that its real
or even moderate spoliation,
purpose was not reform,
but Legislative annihilation. He contrasted this purpose
with the disavowal on the part of the Roman Catholic
Bishops in Ireland in 1826, which was embodied, in dils•
tinct terms, in the oath under the Emancipation Act,
which disclaimed, disavowed, acrd solemnly abjured any
intention of subverting the present Church Establishment
as settled by law in Ireland. What Ireland wanted was
good government, and where Roman Catholic priests had
not confederated to stop the progress of Divine truth, the
Irish Protestant Church had advanced. He implored the
house to act on principle in this matter, and that principle
should be the maintenance of Protestantism ; for he be-
lieved the Papacy had two objects it desired to accomplish
—ono to destroy Parliamentary government, the other to
boat down Protestantism.
Mr.
he considered
LUCAS found it difficult and painful to speak upon
it
of Protestmunt
queition, which ought to pass as a matter of course;
as difficult to restrain his feelings of indignation when
w
title. me tithe injustice done to 5,000,000 Roman Catho-
lics in Irea and it was painful to wound the feelings
into all ecclesiast*
in dwelling upon a case of enormous injus-
c
tice,
of the elation. of the Irish . submitted to the house by this motion
t,es of © n and misrepresented. ;it was for inquiry
mistake
tice to all clas• endowments in. Ireland ;it was not a
bel/ ar .sueseue:est
unconstitutional o ; but how could
was proposed in ordei • Church, but of jus-
t. immunity of Ireland ; and inquiry
justice could be done by
lqua ity of treatment in re-
the establishment of
mspoetcito
nt owaalls religion
ii(gt i otu:
of Parliament. This