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

Arent opinions would still prevail. The commission was
to make no recommendations as to a new mode, of dis-
tribution, but was merely to glean ,statistieal
t°rtnation, to be laid before Parliament, and to see whether
there was an excess or not. As for the proposition that
ad been made by an •hon. • gentleman opposite, namely,
that the same amount should he-given to the Protestant
,'lereymen of the- church of England as was at present al-
to Wed to the Presbyterian ministers in Ireland, he (Sir R.
peel) wail sure that the house would agree with him that
such. an allowance would be altogether inadequate. (Hear. )
4gein, be would ask, when was the proposed inquiry to be
concluded? (Hear.) When he looked to the length of
other inquiries by commission—when he looked to the cor-
Aeration inquiry, and to the Irish church inquiry, he could
tot, help feeling that the inquiry proposed by the noble lord
You'd not be concluded for a considerable time. On re-
lenting to the labours of the commissioners appointed re-
„sPecting the Irish church, he found that the inquiry hitherto
had been confined to the archbishopric of Armagh, and that
„°"IY. one 'diocese had been•inquired into in the course of ten
;ears. (Hear.) To what period, then, might it be ex- ,
re W
eted that the present inquiry would extend ? ,hat would
the consequences in Ireland while this inquiry was
going on? By adopting the course proposed they would
Paralyse their 'own acts, and would destroy the measure
,t,IleY had framed last year. (Hear.) By that measure
`"eY had ordered the protestant landlord to pay the tithes
to the clergyman, and had directed that it should be a rent
:11alr. If the course recommened by the noble lord was
le:d upon, the protestant landlord would be left in a state
°' uncertainty as to the future conduct that would be pur-
foeti. He would be left in a state of uncertainty as to
Whether or not any surplus that might be found to exist
Would be devoted' to, the payment of the clergy of the
Roman Catholic chureh. - (Hear, hear.) Would, then,
adoption of such a proceeding tend to allay the dissatis-
action which now existed? On the contrary, would it
rfiot teed greatly to increase it ? On these grounds, there-
're, he would not acquiesce in the appointment of a corn-
loission and therefore if he gave his vote for the previous
question he was not to be supposed to approve of it.
The generous and high-minded party with which
t• -acted never joined in any vexatious or factious opposi-
•'°ll to the government. (Hear, hear.) They had never
304 tied with parties opposed to them in that house for the
ptrPoee of thwarting any measures of his Majesty's ;p-
-rm:tient. (Hear.) They, :.had felt that it would be in-
Zisistent with the conduct which they had. determined
't Pursue to act on such and had ever .felt
desire to give their support to his Majesty's government-
When they found thata course was pursued consistent with
the
interests of the country. The maintenance of the
fttablished church in Ireland was involved in the motion
Wthe hon. member for Si.- Alban's. He (Sir R. Peel)
hs,„ ready to discuss the question, and to state his reasons
''t the opinion that he entertained in favour of the contie
nuance of the Irish church. During- the whole of his
'Peech-the hon. member for St. Alban's contended for the
°Pinion that the State shoald not recognize any established
'Nion. The hon. member certainly stated that he only
fl3Ptied his principles to the state of the Irish church, but
the opinions of the hon. gentleman were correct as re-
garded_ Ireland, they were also applicable to England.
'id cheers.) He (Sir R. Peel) would attempt to show
e.t this was the case. He, however, would previously
h'"de to two arguments that had been Used by his right
°li• friend the member for Cambridge, Mr. Spring Rice,
(ii.'which place he was still a representative., eA laugh. )
h 11 right hon. friend, in answer to the speech of: the right
„(lti• gentleman the lete Secretary for the Colonies, said, in
'lesion to the property of the Irish church,. that if
'1 excess of property was an inducement• to excite-
petit it became the duty of the Legislature to inter-
el'e• The principle of fine would affect as , much cor-
r.uYation -property as the property of individuals. If the
tleht-- how. gentleman thought it right to deal with an
tbstraet principle, and had made up his mind as to the
Eger of the excess of property, he should work out his
ilnion to itejust conclusions. Nothing in his (Sir R.
thers) opinion, could be more dai-,getous than talking of
don excess of property in the way, his righi 'hon. friend had
He (Sir H., Peel) could imagine the case of an in-
eteential person, who had funds to-such an amount as to
ahcote an alarm in the minds of 'some that there was such
excess of property as to be dangerous to the State.
ere they in such a case to appoint a commission to in-
Quire into the subject? The argument of the right hon.
Z:ilitleman was just as strong in the case of the individual
kit was in that of a corporate body. If property was not
eebY prescript:on—if it was not safe by law—for God's
elieve hem from any difficulties or doub on the
`l.‘,..telerct by att once declaring that to be the case.ts The right
gentleman (Mr. S. Rice) had alluded to the diffe-
-sttarrangements that had been made last year, with
d to certain sees in Ireland, while no change
he kind had been suggested in England. But, a
fight
might be applicable, as 'regarded Ireland, which
."',,tiCht not necessarily be applicable to England.
`' k ear, hear, hear.) The established church was
e "ited Church of England and Ireland, and it was
At?ssible that a change in arrangement might be required in
tr
illatter - country and not in the former. An inquiry
.ttake place as to a change of arrangement without
trait t loo' but_ it" was an entirely different thing when it
thated the great question of property. If they told him
tthey intended to appoint a Commission tcringeire as
dialle number of the clergy of the Church of England, the
vie: they had to perferm, and also their income, with a
t 6 see whether a portion of the revenue might not be voted to other pureost s than it now was, it ceased to be a
;flitter of detail, and became a question of -right. (Hear. )
itn.,,e,V had passed a Taw for reducing the number of bishops
Ireland. They had retained the number 'of sees, but
"4(1 reduced the number of bishops. This was a matter of
nkement, and while such a change was not demanded
England there were circumstances in Ireland which
L ltht render it desirable. There was in that case no ab-
-"ttiou of property from the Irish Church, and as long
the property of the Chnrch was devoted to cede--
tktal objects, with a view to an improved dis-
qhution, there was no party in that house who would
','Ppose such a measure. Last year a measure was
Passed for relieving dissenters from the Establish-
-I:l9ent in Ireland from the payment of church rates. Du-
„IR the present year the noble lord had found himself
tiiigea to act in the same way with regard to the dis
raters -
in England. And what took place with respect to
lite noble lord's proposition? When he came down with a
theasure to provide for the payment of church rates out of
e Consolidated Fund, with a view to the relief of the
ilsenters, he was opposed by 140 members in that house
,N7l'esenting the feelings and opinions of the dissenters,
,e'.lo refused to assent to the arrangement. The house
tilight pass measures intended only to apply to Ireland ;
4e,Y Might be anxious to afford relief to the dissenters in
;!,tand ; but it would be impossible to do so without ex-
ts,"lng similar demands in England. ( Hear.) He had been
,tnebted to the hon. member for St. Alban's for a cor-
rected copy of his speech on this subject, and he thought
t'44 he could not have done it a greater compliment than
e had, namely, he had read it, and he could assure the
~°ll. member that he very seldom read reports of speeches
-"Me in that house. He had, however, read the ho-
iotirable member's speech, as he (Sir R. Peel) was
tic:at,Preeent when it was delivered. He would
.ehow
her 41e.e principles laid down by the honourable mem-
as necessarily applicable to the establishment
Ih4eet,gland as they were to Ireland. The hon. mem-
th_ toldthem that they were called upon to sacrifice
asti principle of truth to the principle of expediency, but
eiNeegislatore they had then nothing to do with the
of truth, (No, no, and a laugh.) [Such we under-
St-00d to be the observation of the right hon. baronet ; but
hgefenseqnence of a noise in the gallery he was indistinctly.
grd-1 Had he (Sir R. Peel) not a ri,,eghtantod?con(sThideer
What •
, was truth in Ireland was truth in- En
the
how. baronet then proceeded to read an extract from
speech of the hon. gentleman, in which he contended
';lat it was unjust to compel those who objected to any
°I'M of religious worship to contribute to its support that
'4l establishments were nominally founded on the principle
at truth, and that even the Spanish Inquisition had me-
' mated in that principle.] It appearea then, said the
Light hon. baronet, the hon. member applied this doctrine
i",the Irish Church, but it was quite as applicable in Eng-
h,-l• The hon. gentleman said that it was degrading to a
teen to be called upon to contribute towards the main-
Ileorlance of a religion of which he disapproved, and that in
lien' ease ought it to be allowed. 'the adoption of such a
ulieht be attended with the most objectionable
tl%en-t,„1"01 instance; he would suppose the case of a
b S'cotland, who had inherited an estate, and
Sup-
Pose l
e--`
se
th-reaesattached to the religion of his country. sup-
was-another individnal who was anxious to
Pa4,!chse land, and went to the nobleman, who sold
ravortlon of his estate, calculating on the charge that was
tatidentrfyo.r the maintenance of the established religion of his
What would be the feelings of the Presbyterian
noblemanand whehaa‘thee purchaser of the land turned upon him
said, " I
Pay the clergymen a religion kdoption of the principle of the hiodi
roofigious scruples? and will no longer
The
ease as this involved a fraud. dissent from?"
WOuld put it 0 the hoe; member in suchh a
He (Sir R. Peel), ow-
;,[nember whether those who
this purchased land in'lrelandb
urandenir
wasd one.
worthso ansuybjteheitngto,
ite legal charge? If the are
etwae appliceble as well to the Church of Scotland and the
oreli Ar England. (:). that of Ireland. He had never
Prcsm3stihtei°dni4satibli4-t
I,e4rd ie the various discnssiens on the
iitt been brought forward for the iettioval °cot
ote d d
• s's p•inei 1 laid down such aS had been
In the P es• 1.1,•, a •ne or
ho z). - discussion of that question. appealed to the
h member for Westminster whether, in the bill which
4lee,;d brought forward for the removal of the civil disa-
1-tie.s
.affecting the Roman Catholics in Ireland, it was
the distinctly stated that the Protestant fa,th, according to
es
blisitit..Qct'in of the Church of England,.was
4rra(Air. —lQoth the esta-
vCl • • hymn in Ireland, and that t eestablishment was
inviolable ? The lion: and learned member
tra,s fer Connell) had asked what right they • had to
•`estant Property of the Catholic Church to a Pro-
that
at establishment? He (Sir R. Peel) would reply,
(sloir,h 'he Period alluded to they had only refermed the
he then established. (A laugh from Mr. O'Connell. )
ila,.(Zeated that they hail reformed the abuses of the
nieiself and he told the hon. and learned member that he
to tht'rweillit be ashamed of the abuses that then existed
Catholic church, and 11041 d be tQ reform