The Sun.
London, England, 1849-03-28 00:00:00

Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE said this was a question
altogether independent of blue books, an I oee e
should be taken on the broad ground of religious libel ty.
—(Hear.) The tax called ministers' money we levie
in eleven towns in the south of Ireland, while the pro-
vince of Ulster was altogether exempted from its
operation. The reason of that exemptisn was, that
when the Act was passed in the reign of Anne the
people of Ulster would not have subr&tted to it.
He was surprised that the Catholics of Ireland should
come before the House in the humble tone they adopted
on such a subject.—(Hear.) If he were a Catholic, he
would not only bring the matter before that House, but
he would agitate elsewhere in such a manner as would
soon call attention to it, and compel a remedy being ap
plied to such an enormous abuse.—(Hear.) It was said
that the tax only amounted to 13,0001., but what had the
amount to do with the matter. Was the sum for which
Hampden took his stand in defence of popular rights
ever made a subject of inquiry ?—(Hear.) Ireland, and
especially the south of Ireland, was a Catholic country,
and by what right did they assume to themselves the
power of saying that in this, the l 9 h century, the
Catholics should be called upon to make provision for
the support of certain Protestant parishes?—(Loud cries
of " Hear.") He had himself been present on an occa-
sion in the south of Ireland when a clergyman of the
Established Church, who had formerly been a Catholic,
preached a sermon, and he had heard that clergyman,
who was receiving ministers' money, call his Catholic
fellow-countrymen vagabonds. The Hon. Member for
Dublin (Mr. Grogan)hai talked much about the an
cessity of upholding the Protestant Establishment, but
the fact was that the question was one simply of pounds,
shillings, and pence. He (Mr. B. Osborne) would tell
Hon. Members who were so sensitive about the Esta-
blishment, that if they adapted the Church to the wants
of the Protestant portion of the population, they would
snake it much more prosperous, and would much more
effectually advance its interests.—(Hear, hear.) He
supported his Hon. Friend (Mr. Fagan) on the question
of ministers' money, because he considered it a disgrace
to the civilised world that such a tax should be imposed.
When they were passing coercive measures for Ireland,
he had a right to ask why Ministers had not come down
with a Bill for the abolition of this disgraceful impost.—
(Hear, hear.) One of the ablest Members of that
House, and one who was a member of her Majesty's Go-
vernment, the Hon. Member for Dungarvon (Mr. Sheil),
had drawn up a report as Chairman of the Committee
which had been appointed on the subject of ministers'
money. But nothing had as yet been done upon the
subject. If no Hon. Member brought forward a motion
on the subject he would himself do so on an early day,
and in the meantime he would give his support to the
Hon. Member for Coik (Mr. Fagan).
Sir GEORGE GREY said that the Honourable
Member who just sat down addressed the House in a
far different spirit from the Hon. Member who pre-
ceded him, for the Honourable Member expressed a
wish that the Protestant Church of Ireland should be
entirely abolished.
Mr. B. OSBORNE disclaimed any such intention. He
was for a measure similar to that proposed by the ap-
propriation clause, but not that it should be abolished.
Sir GEORGE GREY continued—The Hon. Member,
then, was only for the abolition of ministers' money,
and not for that of the church ; but if the Honourable
Member looked to the concluding paragraph of the re-
port made to the House he would see that no substi-
tute was recommended in place of that which now ex-
isted. A Roman Catholic clergyman of Cork, examined
before the Committee, stated from his experience as a
member of a relief committee, that in his opinion the
feeling of the Protestant clergy was entirely averse to
the manner in which ministers' money was now paid.
He (Sir George Grey) agreed with much that had been
laid down in the report with regard to the payment of
ministers' money and the mode of doing so, particularly
in Scotland, where the practice existed since the reign of
Charles the Second; and he was, therefore, not disposed
to dispute what it said; but the difficulty was to provide
something in its stead. What the Committee stated was,
that there may be such an increase in the funds in the
hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, as to enable
them to place the charge on that fund. That, however,
was not the case, and until they could see their way, he
was not prepared to accede to the motion. He had not
had time to read the entire of the evidence, but the Dean
of Limerick said the charge ought to be put on the
Church temporalities, while the Rsv. Mr. Dalmage
thought it ought to be taken out of the Consolidated
Fund. For his own part, he was inclined to accede to
the view of the Dean of Limerick; but as there were no
funds available at present to carry that suggestion into
effect, he would not oppose the motion by :direct nega-
tive, but move the previous question.
The question having been put from the Chair,
Mr. H. GRATTAN said he was born a Protestant, he
lived a Protestant, and he trusted he should die a Pro-
testant; but, considering the state of that Church in Ire-
land, whose service was not in many localities performed
for three years, where grass was found to grow before the
church doors, so small was the number who entered them,
and so seldom service performed, that he thought the
system a disgrace to the Protestant religion. In a parish
in Wicklow, with which he was acquainted, there was
only one Protestant residing in it, and he had two wives.
—(Laughter.) Now he (Mr. Grattan) was taxed to
pay 4001. a year to save his soul, which was not, as
everybody knew, worth saving.—(Roars of laughter.)
That was the absurdity of the whole system. Let it bo
supported by the kindly feelings and religious senti-
ments of Protestants themselves, and not compel Roman
Catholics to do so. Nothing so disgusted him as the
hypocrisy, and cant, and humbug, carried on in that
House..—(Cries of " Oh, oh.") The Hon. Member for
Middlesex said " Oh, oh," but he should say " Aye, aye."
He was longer a member than the Lion. Member, and he
should repeat that he was disgusted by the conduct pur-
sued in that Huse. The Protestant clergy of Ireland
sent their children to Rugby and Oxford to be educated
there; they went themselves to Bath and Cheltenham to
amuse themselves, while poor curates were compelled to
do duty for 501. a year.—(Hear, hear.) A Protestant
Bishop was found in a pulpit in Ireland to say that the
Catholic religion was the religion of the d--- I; and that
was the way they acted, first abusing, and then
swindling the Catholic people out of their properties.
Sir JOHN YOUNG observed that the Right Hon.
Gentlemen the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
ment read a report to the House from a Committee ap-
pointed on the subject, but he should tell the House that
the minority on that Committee was five, while the ma-
jority was only seven; thus entitling, at all exents, the
minority to a respectful consideration. It must be appa-
rent to every one, that if the charge of ministers' money
were given up, the result would be like the reduction of
25 per cent. which took place on tithes some
years ago, that the amount would go into the
landlord's pocket, as the 25 per cent. o: tithes did.
Mr. H. GRATTAN denied that a penny of the 25
per cent. went to the landlords.
Sir JOHN YOUNG contended that it did in almost
every instance ; and as to the objection made—that
many were charged with the ministers' money who had
no property, a new valuation would cure the defect.
Mr. D. CALLAGHAN said that every Protestant
clergyman examined before the Committee on the sub-
ject spoke against it, and denounced it in the strongest
terms. He himself knew an instance of a parish where
the number of Protestants consisted of the parish clerk,
the churchwardens, and six women, all of whom were
pregnant by the churchwardens; and in another case
the clergyman had to make his wife the church warden.
Mr. KERSHAW expressed the pain with which he
had heard the religion of the country treated in the de-
bate that night. If they could not treat the subject
otherwise the sooner such debates were banished from
the House the better. He agreed with those who thought
the Church, as by law established in Ireland, was the
bane of that country.—(Oh, and cheers.) He repeated
that it was the bane of that country.—(Hear, hear.) It
was a gross injustice to the Catholics of Ireland that
they should be compelled to support the church of the
minority.—(Hear, hear.) He wished to see religion
placed upon the voluntary principle, both in Ireland and
in this country, and the sooner that was done the better,
as he believed it would put an end to all discussions about
mere pelf, and promote true religious feeling throughout
the country.
Mr. NEWDEGATE could not hear without instant
Contradiction that the Church in Ireland did not do its
duty. In the time of distress the clergy of that Church
had nobly done their duty in that great emergency. But
in speaking of this subject, he was obliged to revert
with pain to a point which he had formerly brought
under the attention of the House, namely, the bringing
forward questions affecting the Protestant Church by
Roman Catholic Members, in defiance of the plain mean-
ing and sense of the oath which they took on their ad-
mission to that House. Now they had had the distinct
admission of three Hon. Members that this was an
attack on the Protestant Church, and he could not under-
stand how these Hon. Members, having taken that oath,
could reconcile it to their consciences to support this
motion. But he had pledged himself to show that
Roman Catholics considered themselves bound by no
oaths which were detrimental to the interests of their
own Church, and he was prepared to do so. The Hon.
Member having cited several authorities to prove that it
was an essential article of the Roman Catholic Church
to hold no faith with heretics, in conclusion expressed
his belief that the Hon. Member who had moved this
motion would have done better to have left the matter in
the hands of some Protestant Member, as, for instance,
the Member for Middlesex ; and he was sure that no
Member could have been found more anxious for the
destruction of the Protestant Church than that Hon.
Member.
The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY explained
that the authorities referred to by the Hon. Member ap-
plied to illicit oaths only, and with respect to the oath
taken by Roman Catholic Members on their admission
to that House, great difference of opinion existed as to
the construction to ba put upon it. The Honourable
Member who had brought forward the motion was a
Roman Catholic, but he had made no attack on the
Church. These attacks had come from Protestant
Members. _ .

Mr. HUME said if an attempt to remove an abuse
was to be construed into a❑ attack on the Church, and
upon religion, he had frequently been guilty of it; and
in 1844, when precisely a similar question was before the
House, Lord Stanley and other Members who would not
be accused of being opposed to the Church, expressed
themselves as being strongly opposed to the abuses then
pointed out. He wished to ask why did the Right
Honourable 13..tronet move the previous question,
as if it was one that ought not to have been put.—
(Hear, hear.) Why did he not meet it with a direct
negative, if he was opposed to it, and give the House
an opportunity of learning the present opinions of
those who sat near him, and who bad formerly voted for
a much more sweeping measure of reduction in the Irish
Church, without considering that they made an attack
on that Church. Hon. Members had expressed a wish
that Church matters should not be discussed in that
House. If so, let them supp art a motion which was in-
tended to remove the causa of such discussion, arid take
away a continual source of excitement in Ireland. Lie