The Sun.
London, England, 1838-07-24 00:00:00

viction that the Established Church will be maintained in Ire- 1
land. lam at the same time certain that you will never re-
concile the people of Ireland to the continuance of that Church
by merely providing that ten per cent. shall be deducted from
the ameunt of the revenues of the Church, and still less will
you succeed in that end by declaring that an indefinite and un-
ascertained surplus which may probably accrue at a period
some forty years hence shall hereafter be applied to the pur-
poses of education.—( Laughter and loud cheers.) I think it
much better than that sum which is the property of the
Church should be appropriated to the support of the Ministers
of that Church.—( Hear.) Depend upon it, the Noble Lord
will be no more able to maintain the principle which he
propounded the other night than he was able to maintain the
appropriation principle.—(Cheers.) The Noble Lord says
that if he pushed his principle to its legitimate extent that
he ought to go further. Why, possibly in the declaration he
made we may find some clue to the interpretation of that
principle. It would be better that the Noble Lord should at
once and above board tell us what is the conclusion of his
principle, and what is the ultimate limit of its application.-
1 tell the Noble Lord that I consider that his principle,
if brought to its legitimate conclusion, would be nothing
more nor less than establishing the religion of the majority,
and of transferring the wealth and influence of the mino-
rity to the support of the Church of the majority.
If this is to be the legitimate conclusion of the Noble Lord's
principle, let me tell him that no intermediate arrangement
will give him any chance of such a settlement. What is the
security that we hold for the maintenance of the Established
Church. It is a fundamental principle of our Constitution
that the Protestant religion should be established as the
religion of the State. In addition to this we had a guaran-
tee at the time of the Union of Ireland with Great Britain
that the Protestant Church should be maintained in its inte-
grity as the Established Church of that country. And mark
you, this guarantee was given at a time when, whatever ano-
malies existed in that country, were as well known as they are
now, and when the disproportion between the Catholics and
Protestant inhabitants of Ireland was as well known as at pre-
sent. Well, then, at the time of the Union we were given an
additional guarantee that the Protestant Church should be
maintained as the Church of the State. We had besides this
the moral guarantee that ought to be held binding by the
parties who gave it, and who assumed at the time that the re-
moval of the civil disabilities of the Roman Cntholics was per.
fectly consistent with the maintenance of the Protestant faith
as the established faith, and with the maintenance of the Pro-
testant Church as the Established Church of the country. In
everything that we did we always took care to maintain that
principle. If you ask me to depart from that principle, I say
I will not consent to do, because you now assume a new posi-
tion. You say, let four-fifths of the property of the Church
be applied to the use of the Church, but let one-fifth be ap-
propriated somewhere else and applied to some other purpose. I
said when you made such proposal that I never would give my
consent to any such proceeding—that if I consented I would
only weaken my title without acquiring any additional secu-
rity. I believe that the maintainatice of this great principle
is of the deepest importance—l mean the principle of main-
taining the Established Church. In expressing my deter-
mination to maintain the Established Church, I adopt the
principles that were settled at the Revolution—those principles
which were forther recognized and confirmed by the Act of
Union, and additionally guaranteed and strengthened at suc-
cessive times by every promise and pledge that Parliament
could give.—(Cheers.) In conclusion, I will say that, after
we have made every reasonable concession with respect to the
amount of Tithes in Ireland, the remaining amount of Tithe,
or of the revenue ',substituted in lieu thereof, should be solely
and exclusively applied to the support of the Ministers of that
religion, which I trust we shall ever feel it one of the highest
duties to maintain as the established religion of the State.
The Right Hon. Baronet resumed his seat amidst loud and
reiterated cheering. He immediately again rose and proposed
an amendment to the effect stated in his speech—that the
rights of all parties to recover arrears of Tithes should be
maintained, and that where parties consented:a° accept the
terms proposed by the Government, the right of all such
parties should be transferred to, and vested in, the Go-
vernment.
Mr. BE RN A L having put the question and the amend-
ment from the Chair,
Lord J. RUSSELL rose and said that the Right Hon.
Gentleman had stated two points which he (Lord John Rus-
sell) considered of minor ielportance, and one which he thought
of very great importance with respect to the sum of money
now to be advanced. The Right Hon. Baronet said that the
Government proposal went the length of paying the arrears of
tithes for the last two years, and that it did not include the
arrears of 1834 and 1835. The reason why that dis-
tinction was made was, that when the proposal was ori-
ginally submitted to the House, it was stated that only
the arrears of the last two years were to be taken, and that
former years were to be considered as years during which it
was not likely that arrears could be collected. At the same
time there were, no doubt, special cases, particular and in-
dividual cases, to which it might be desirable that a part of
this sum should be applied. He should not propose, how-
ever, to alter his general proposition ; although, if he under-
stood the Right Hon. Baronet's suggestion correctly, the only
- difference would be, whether the 300,0001., supposing it to be
300,0001., should be partaken in by persons who had a claim
for arrears in 1834 and 1835. The next point was, with
regard to the making up the sum of 300,0001., and not leav-
ing it as the Government proposed at 260,0001. He had an
objection to the Right Hon. Baronet's proposition upon
this point, although it was not upon the ground that the State
would be any loser by adopting the alteration ; on the con-
trary, he thought the sum collected would exceed 40,0001.
Therefore, if the question were merely one of money, he
thought that by fixing the sum at 300,000/. the State would
be rather a gainer than a loser by the change. But the
sum of 260,0001. was originally taken upon this ground, and
it was a ground that had considerable effect upon the House,
namely, that the original grant was 1,000,000/., and that
200,000/. was the balance or remainder of that 1,000,0001.,
which as yet remained unappropriated. As the intention
of Parliament was to grant 1,000,0001., and as a part only
of that sum had been actually expended, it was assumed
that the Legislature might very fairly make up the re-
mainder for the sake of carrying out the original design.
But the House and the country he apprehended would be
impatient of any proposition for a fresh grant of money for
that purpose. It was upon that ground, therefore more than
upon ahy ground of anticipated loss to the public, that he
should oppose the proposition for fixing the sum at 800,000/.
instead of 260,000/ But the main alteration proposed by the
Right Hon. Baronet was, that instead of at once extinguish-
ing all arrears up to the time when that Act should come into
operation, it should be left optional to the clergymen to ac-
cept the sum offered in payment of arrears or not ; and the
ground upon which the Right Hon. Baronet suggested the
alteration was, that it would be saving a great principle, and
paying due regard to the rights of the Church. He (Lord
John Russell) thought that that was a delusion. He thought
that in making this grant, and giving this compensation
to the owners of tithes—it being understood that in such
cases the arrears of tithes were not to be collected—he
thought that by taking that course, they did in fact indemnify
those who owed arrears of tithes against any further demand
for the payment of them. It might be very true that that
intention was not expressed in words, but it was certainly
very strongly implied. It must be supposed either .hat the
majority of the clergy would accept this money as a compen-
sation for their arrears, or that they would not accept it. If
the majority did not accept it, then the whole benefit and
value of the grant would be lost, and all the irritation, dis-
content, and discord which existed in Ireland upon the sub-
ject of these arrears would continue. If, on the contrary,
the majority of the clergy should accept the proferred
compensation, in the majority of cases throughout the whole
of the country the payment of arrears of tithes would be for-
given. Considering, then, the situation of the clergymen who
had refused the compensation, and who endeavoured, under
such a clause as that proposed by the Right Hon. Baronet, to
enforce his right, and collect the arrears due to him, what
would be the condition of such a clergyman, and how would
he be refunded by the people ? Suppose a case. Here was a
man to whom there were due 2001. for arrears of tithes in 1836
and 1837. The composition proposed to be given to him
would probably amount only to about fifty per cent., that
would be 100/. It might so happen that during those two
years the maintenance of his family and other necessary ex-
penses would have led him to incur debts to the amount of
150/. A man in that position might, and perh'aps with no
great unfairness, and with no great intended harshness on his
part, say—" What I owe is 150/, the compensation proposed
to be given me is only 100/. I think perhaps, if I were to col-
lect the arrears due to me, I might succeed in obtaining 75 per
cent. which would just set me clear." That would be a very
natural course for a man so situated to adopt ; but what would
be said of him? Would it not be as natural for his pa-
rishioners to say—" Do not expect to obtain your arrears
from us. We find that the arrears of all our neighbours have
been forgiven, because the clergymen of these parishes have
accepted the gratuity of jParliament. Why do not you do
the same? At all events do not expect from us the payment
of a tax from which our neighbours have been exempted."
Did not every ono feel that that was the language which
you'd be held. Therefore, although by the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet's amendment the clergyman might be said to have a
choice, yet, in point of fact, he would have no choice at all ;
because, if the great mass of the clergy should accept the
grant, it would hardly be in the power—certainly would be
very
invidious, if not dangerous—of any clergyman to reject
it, and eedeavour to enforce his right of the collection of the
arrears due to him. Would it not be better, in fact, as well
as in words, to put an end to these claims than to leave the
matter open to further dispute ? Would it not be better to
to adopt a principle which should be uniform and conclusive
in its operation, than one wia;ch, whilst it gave content and
harmony to one parish, should plueeje another into all the hor-
rors of riot and bloodshed. The Right Hon. Baronet, towards
the close of his speech, had alluded to this plan as
.affecting the
future welfare of Ireland ; and also to some observations which,
upon a former occasion, had fallen from his Noble Friend
(Viscount Howick), and which the Right Honourable Ba-
ronet seemed to consider as indicative of what the fu-
ture conduct of the Government might be with respect
to questions relating to the Established Church in
He had said so much, and on so many occasions had stated his
opinion, with regard to the affairs of the Church of Ireland,
that if it had not been for the allusion just made by the Right
Hon. Baronet, he (Lord J. Russell) should not have on the
present occasion troubled the House with a single word on the
subject. The Right Hon. Baronet had, however, been so ex-
plicit in his allus;ens, that it was impossible to misunderstand
them. Although, perhaps, it might have been considered
more consistent with his euty to hive passed the matter over
in silence, he ( Lord J. Russell) would not ewe- refrain from
stating his general opinions on the subject now beftsrp the
House.—( Hear, hear.) He thought that the proposition they
had made in 1834, which they repeated in 1835, nernely, that
a portion of the revenues of the Irish Church should be given