The Sun.
London, England, 1834-06-03 00:00:00

ritrent effect upon his mind, Those ..eeches furnished :.•• I
'strong arguments as could be, used for inducing him t
port the present' Ooreenaneid rather ;than throw out that
which he regarded as a liberal administratimi. (f fear. )
He denied that the question to be determined was either
for or against'the church. On the contrary, all they were
required to do by giving their support to th; amendnient of
the noble lord was to express an intention of upholding a
government identified with the great measures that were
now, in a more or less complete Shape, before the house.
They must either be content with the present Govern-
ment Or submit to a more conservative administra-
tion ; and it was, with that view, although at some little
sacrifice of prinCfple, that he should vote with the noble
lord; and take upon himself any responsibility that his do-
ing -so 'might incur. But what was it they were called upon
to do? Why, to pass a resolution that-"was altogether un-
necessary. Even if that resolution were agreed to, they
would require a commission, and, as the noble lord had
expressed the willingness of Government to send forth a
commission, they would obtain all they wanted without
coming to any decision upon the subject.
Mr. BARRON should, also vote for the previous ques-
tion, on the supposition that the views of the government
were hostile to those Of the right hon. gentleman the ex-
Secretary for the Colonies. He felt strong confidence
in the government; but, although he meant to support
them on the present occasion; he also approved of the prin-
ciple which the resolution of his hon. friend laid down.
Sir R. INGLIS said that the hon. member for the
Tower Hamlets seemed to approve of the present adininis-
tration, because he thought it had preserved its unity of
purpose. But could any one have heard the speeches de-
livered by the two noble lords opposite and. his right hon.
friend, who was still one of the members for the town of
Cambridge, without being- convinced that a difference of
opinion did exist in the cabinet respecting church pro-
perty.? It was quite manifest that the noble lords had
made their minds up to appropriate the revenues of the
church to other than ecclesiastical purposes. The lion.
member for Middlesex complained that there was great
mystery in the way in which the noble lord deli-
vered his sentiments ; but, in his (Sir Robert Inglis's)
judgment, the noble lord made a much stronger
avowal of the views entertained not only by himself,
but by the government with which he was connected, on
this subject than accorded with his taste. It was,. he res,
peated, impossible to have heard the nektiijords without
being convinced that they had made up MP minds' to a
different appropriation of church property to that which
now existed. But what had his right hon. friend the
member for Cambridge said when descanting on the result
of the commission proposed to be appointed? He said
that when the report of that commission was before him
he should examine it with a free and unbiassed mind ; but
it was not a little observable that a syllable had not escaped
him which'could.pledge him to any such lengths as his
noble colleagues were evidently prepared to go. Here,
then, was an obvious difference of opinion entertained by
the three members of the government who had spoken.
He did not allude to what had fallen from the right hon.
gentleman the President of the India Board, but he thought
he had said enough to show that distinct opinions respect-
ing the appropriation of church property were held by
the members of the Cabinet who had spoken that night.
Two of them maintained the right of the legislature to ap-
propriate the revenues of the church how they pleased,
while the third, his right hon. friend (Mr. Rice), de-
clared that he should keep his mind open—that as yet
he had arrived at no conclusion as to the course he
should take on this momentous question. Surely here
were the elements of dissension developing them-
selves, notwithstanding the congratulations of the hon.
member for the Tower Hamlets that nothing but unity
prevailed in the cabinet. He (Sir R. Inglis), however,
thought that with much more reason he might congratu-
late hon. members on the back benches on the prospect
that was before them, of being at no very distant day
called upon to sit on the Treasury benches. But, without
adverting further to the honour of a connection with such
a government, he would merely say that, in common with
his right hon. friends (Sir Robert 'Peel and Mr. Stanley)
he felt the difficulty in which he was placed as to the vote
which he should give on the present occasion. Of the two
propositions before the house, the previous question cer-
tainly was the least objectionable, and, although he should
of necessity vote for it, he would, had the rules of the
house allowed of his taking that course, have felt it his
duty to meet the resolution of the hon. gentleman the
member for St. Albans, by moving a direct negative. If
this or the other house of Parliament undertook to regu-
late and reduce church property in Ireland, they were
equally entitled to do it in England ; and, above all, the
same principle which would justify regulation and reduc-
tion would also justify extinction. He would defy any
hon. gentleman to show that the principle, once adopted,
might not goo as far as to the extinction of the established
church. /Now, the question was, was the country pre-
pared to go to ;his extent ? (Hear, hear.) If it were com-
petent for Parliament'to reduce the property of the church,
it was equally competent for it to annihilate or to transfer.
In his opinion, as far as the vote of the House of Com-
mons could go to establish that principle, and entail such
consequences, this motion would do so if carried. Upon
the grounds he had stated, and having to choose between
two evils, he should vote for the previous question."
Lord PALMERSTON said it was a source of great
satisfaction to him that the house were not now called upon
to express an opinion upon, or even to discuss, the questions
embraced in the motion of the hon. member, because it
would be most painful to him at the present moment to
enter upon a subject with regard to which he very strongly
differed in opinion with those of his right hon. friends
from whom he had, with so much pain to himself, been
lately separated as official men. ( A laugh.) Although some
gentlemen might laugh and talk about the love of friend-
ship, he was sure there were others who could appreciate
the feelings subsisting between men acting officially to-
gether and he knew that his right hon. friends would be-
lieve him when he said that their present relative position
had afforded him the greatest personal pain.. ,He was,
therefore, glad that the question really before them was
only this, whether it was now expedient for the house to
come to a decision upon the important questions in-
volved in the motion of the hon. member, or whether,
for the reasons stated by his noble friend, they should pre-
fer the previous question. He must say that, in the whole
course of the debate, he had not heard one argument
stated to show why the latter would not be the preferable
course. It had been asked what had occurred since last
week, when the Government were understood to have been
prepared to support the motion, that they should now move
the previous question. In answer to this he appealed to the
speech of his right hon. friend the Secretary for the Colo-
nies, and to the appointment of the commission. The
circumstances to which those speeches referred had placed the
question in an entirely new position. The hon. member
who•brought forward the motion had said, .that if his mo-
tion were carried there was nothing he could propose to
follow it up which he should so much prefer as that very
commission. The hon. member for Middlesex had said
the same. Why, then, were not those gentlemen pre-
pared to withdraw the motion, and adopt the course re-
commended by Government, instead of asking the home
to decide upon facts first, and then to inquire? It would
be the grossest absurdity if the house was to accede to the
motion. In any case, if the house was prepared, without
obtaining previous information, to deal with a question of
such importance, and involving the religious feelings of a
whole community, they ought at least to proceed with pe-
culiar caution. What was it that the motion called upon
the house to avow ? Why, that the Protestant Episcopal
Establishment exceeded the wants of the Irish community,
and that it ought to be reduced. What would the people
of Ireland say if the House of Commons had made
such an answer ? Would they not expect that such a
declaration should be followed up by the immediate mea-
sures of relief ? He was perfectly prepared to declare
the principle that the property of the church could not be
regarded as it had been described by the right honour-
able baronet the member for Tamworth, as standing
upon the same footing as private property. He
never could • consider that the two kinds of property
.stood
upon the same footing. He regarded it 'as exercising a
trust, which might be altered in its conditions, if the legis-
lature in its wisdom should at any time see fit. In fact,
that was a principle which they had already, acted upon in
the measures they had passed relaing to the Irish church.
He did not apprehend that although such a course had been
taken with regard to Ireland, that the same would occur
in England, because the state of the establishments and
of the two countries were so different that it was impossi-
ble to argue from one to the other. The hon. member
for Wexford had asked whether the Cabinet as it stood was
united upon this question? He had no hesitation in saying
that the present Cabinet was united upon it. Therefore,
if any hon. members should be disposed to support this
motion upon the supposition that any part of the govern-
ment required to be coerced upon this question by a vote
of the house, they were entirely mistaken. He thought
that sufficient had been done by the commission which had
passed the•great seal, and those gentlemen who reposed
confidence in the government, and were desirous of its con-
tinuance in office, could not, he thought, have found many
grounds in the debate for voting against the previous ques-
tion, but might have seen much in the speech of the hon..
and learned member for Dublin to induce them to vote
against the motion.

-Mr. D. BROWNE said that the real question before
the house Was, would they or would they not endow that
religion which had existed in Ireland for the lastthree hun-
dred years, in spite .of every persecution ?, (Hear, hear. )
Thus was the question then actually before the house. He
would not conceal it that what Ireland wanted was the re-
cognition of the rights of the Catholic church, and nothing
short of that would pacify her. In any measure of that
'nature the Presbyterians ought to be taken into considera-
tion.; but, compared with the Roman Catholics, their
claims were small. There were, besides, the Catholics of
Ireland, a million of Catholics in the empire ; and he
1 would ask if it were possible to continue to, treat those
seven millions of Catholics as a tolerated sect ? It was
argued that the tithes were the property of the Protes
tant church in the same sense that the landsbelonged to the
landlords of that country. This, too, he denied. The Pro-
testant landlords got their lands in It eland subject to tithes
before there were any Protestants in Ireland at all. (Loud
laughter and cheers.) It was easy for gentlemen to laugh,,
but the persona he meant were the-anceoters of 01910 FP?*