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

IR 'TA

gard to its usefulness ; still they were bOund to continue
them, although by the hypothesis they might en-
danger, and perhaps be productive of the most se-
rious and alarming. consequences. He differed from this
principle. The right hon. gentleman thought that by
departing from it, the church of Ireland would be de-
stroyed„. This conclusion he ( Mr. Spring Rice) unhesi-
tatingly denied. He was by birth, education, and reflection
sincerely attached to the church as by law established, and
he should not consent to any measure that would endanger
the stability or security of the church. If it was proved
the income was too much for its wants, it would be the
principle of safety, and not of danger, to apply those reve-
nues to other and more useful purposes. For the sake,
then, of the Protestant Establishment of the country ; for
the security of the church to which he conscientiously ad-
hered; for Protestantism itself, he would take his stand
against the views of the right hon. gentleman. (Cheers.)
But further his right hon. friend had proceeded. He had
said that he considered the cases of the churches of Eng-
land and Ireland to be the same; and that that which bore
against one would materially affect the other. He denied
this. (Cheers.) He would contend there was no simila-
rity between the two churches ; they were Coto ece/o diffe-
rent. The right hon. gentleman had said, that if the
house adopted a principle towards Ireland, they must re-
cognise the principle so far as the Church of England was
concerned. Nothing could be more erroneous than this.
The two churches were upon grounds totally opposite and
distinct, and subject to different modes of legislation. In
proof of this he could confidently adduce a recent case,
which, legally speaking, might be considered in point.
When the hon. gentleman, the member for Cambridge,
brought forward his bill respecting tithes, he could not,
with any hopes of success, proceed, unless it was stated in
the preamble that his measure was entirely different from
the one intended to apply to Ireland. (Cheers.) But, de-
parting from this, let them look to the Church Temporali-
ties Bill. In it a reduction of ten bishops was called for ;
was it intended that the bench of bishops in England should
be likewise reduced? Did the country witness such reduc-
tion ? (Cheers.) No, it did not ; and it was clearly as-
certainable that no parallel cases existed. Then, putting
the Church of England out of the question, was it too
much to ask, that if the Church of Ireland exhibited an
undue and unnecessary increase 'of wealth, it should not
be placed under the surveillance of Parliament ? there
was exhibited a surplus, was it, again, he' would ask,' too
much for the legislattire of the country to decide how that
surplus was to be appropriated ?—how the extra revenue
was to be applied ? He considered such a power ought to
be vested in Parliament, and more particularly so, for the
maintenance of the Protestant religion of the country.
(Cheers.) He contended strongly, but he hoped inoffen-
sively, for this principle—a principle which he felt pos-
sessed within itself a spirit ofjustness and fairness thatcould
not be successfully assailed. He would not go further on
the general question, but the truth could not be concealed
from the eye, that the Church of Irelandhad gained nothing
by an increase of wealth. If it could be proved that in
England an incumbent received 267/. a year for performing
most severe duty, and that in Ireland an incumbent was
paid 2001. a year more for doing comparatively nothing—
sure, sure, the house would be entitled to interfere.
Feeling thus, and keeping his mind perfectly open 'to any
further information that might be adduced, he would vote
for the previous question, being perfectly assured it would
meet all that the country justly desired. Then, with re-
gard to the original motion. What were its limits and
extents ? Why, it exhibited an absurdity upon the fair
face of it. The house was called upon to decide first, and
deliberate afterwards. (Cheers.) Was it in consequence
of its being an Irish question, that the absurdity was at-
tempted ? He repudiated it, and would vote for the pre-
vious question, fully confident that the course he was pur-
suing was the best for the public good ; and that when the
church was to be defended, the position was not to be taken
up on indefensible grounds. (Cheers.) He would support
the previous question.
Mr. EWART rose amid loud cries of " Question,"
and " Oh, oh !" and spoke so low, that we could not clearly
understand the purport of what he said. We 'understood
him, however, to declare, that he could not understand
why the noble lord had not comb;ned the two principles
together, and taken his stand upon that ground. He re-
gretted the retirement of the right hon. gentleman, but he
was sure the country would greatly admire the honesty
which dictated the step. He must however state, that he
considered the right hon. gentleman's principles more fitted
for a former than the present age. The Cabinet was too
Tory. He (Mr. Ewart) would wish to " unaristocratise"
it, and see it placed upon a footing that would meet the
fullest wishes of the nation. (Cheers. ) .

Mr. LAMBERT hoped the house would permit him to
s:ieak while he gave his reasons why he would support the
motion of the hon. gentleman, the member for St. Albans
Any member who had voted the other night, and who was
then prepared to take a different view of the question, he
w mid ask what had since occurred to make him change
his mind ? (Cheers.) Trua it was a portion of the
cabinet had resigned, but still an influential portion re-
mained to oppose the principle which was that night ad-
vocated. The question resolved itself into two material
points ; first, the question of amount ; and, secondly, the
question of appropriation. Let it, then, be broadly stated
that parliament is pledged to appropriate—let it be placed
upon the records of the house (Cheers), let it not be
blinked, or given the go by to. It would confirm ever:,
succeeding administration. (No, no.) Yes, he wouh
contend that it would be impossible for any future admi-
nistration to dissent from a fair and just principle, when
such a declaration met their eyes, coming as it did from
the first reformed House of Commons. One question
presented itself, which he could not avoid putting. Since
the differences announced had taken place, a momentous
declaration had been made—had appeared in the public
prints—and which had not been contradicted. It was a
Royal answer to an address from the bishops. Who were
the responsible advisers of the crown on that occasion ?
(Order, order.) He thought there should be the fullest
explicitness on the present occasion. Why should not the
ministry say, " We now sanction the principle of appro-
priation, and shall not depart from it." The time require('
a bold and straightforward principle to meet the public
eye, the public wants, and the public wishes. A serious
difference had taken place in the cabinet on the subject.
They all knew the extent of the ability which they had
lost, and he was desirous to know what they had gained?
(Cheers.) Would they, hesitate to do that then, which
they would be forced to concede afterwards ? Difficulties
were pressing ; and they could only be avoided by a bold,
manly, and straightforward course of action. Ile motioi,
of the hon. member for St. Albans would give the house
the power over the revenues of the church; a right that
could not be fairly or justly disputed.
Mr. O'CONNELL could not agree with the hon. gen-
tleman who had just sat down, that the noble lord's com-
mission of inquiry would give any satisfaction under what-
ever circumstances, and he warned Ministers against being
led away by the delusion that this commission would do any
thing for them. We had a commission of corporate inquiry
last year ; and what good did it do ? How much nearer
were we to obtaining relief from the grievance of corporate
abuses ? A commission was a mere pretence—a wet blanket
to stifle what the country required, and what Ministers, it
they had sufficient determination and manliness, could
give : he meant satisfaction to Ireland and security-to Eng-
land, for, unless satisfaction was afforded to Ireland, blessed
be God, there could not be any security for England.
(Cheers and laughter.) His object in pressing this subject
on the attention of Ministers was solely with a view to give
satisfaction to Ireland. He had a plan of his own for giving
satisfaction in this matter, but he did not now press it on
Ministers or the house, and why ?—because he wished to
urge the noble lord opposite to come forward and proceed
with a satisfactory plan himself. Let the noble lord do so,
let Ministers adopt that course, and take Ireland out of
the hands of agitators, as they termed them. (Hear,
hear.) If gentlemen thought that there was no real
grievance, that all alleged evils were mere poetry and the
imagination of public men, it would not be hard to satisfy
the demands of the Irish people • but if grievances ac-
tually existed, teal and substantial grievances, *alit. too
much to ask for their redress? (Hear.) If Ministers were
determined not to redress those grievances, if they, were
resolved to continue that most degrading of all conditions,
1 in which the mass of the people were obliged to contribute
to the wealth and splendour of a church from which they
conscientiously dissented, and which' repaid them with in-
sult for their tribute—if that were the intention of minis-
ters, let them take a bold and manly course, and call back
the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Stanley) to the situation
which he had just relinquished. (Hear) The right hon.
gentleman told the house his principles frankly and boldly,
and said that there must be a Protestant church esta-
blishment in Ireland, no matter how few' the Protestant
congregations and hearers--this for the sake of maintaining
the purity of Protestantism ; it was therefore consistent in
the right hon. gentleman to act as he did. But what be-
came of the consistency of the right hon. gentleman's late
colleagues? (Hear.) He laughed to scorn the right
hon. gentleman's doctrine, and told him that his principle
had been tried in Ireland for 200 years without. effect. It
commenced in blood and rapine and plunder—it was con-
tinued with the like consequences, and had perpetuated
heart-burnings and injustice down to the present hour.
The right hon. gentleman was for supporting a state
religion which was not the religion of the people ; he was
for maintaining the old principle, the purity, of Protestant-
ism ; if the right hon gentleman held fast by ancient prin-
ciples, why went he not back to Popery at once, and why
, not give back to the Carthusians,Benedictines,Dominicans,
and Franciscans that property which was originally theirs,
but which the right hon. gentleman now insisted on having
appropriated for the sake of the small number of Protes-
tants in Ireland? But nevertheless, and nothwithstanding
the absurdity of his doctrine, the right hon. gentleman v,"
consistent; he had gone out of office on principle, and Mi-
nisters had remained in office on principle ; but the right
hon. gentleman differed from his late colleagues in this re-
spect, that he now boldly and openly asserted his principle,
while they did not venture to maintain theirs. (Hear, and
laughter.) The right hon. gentleman, he repeated, had
asserted his principle, why did not Ministers assert theirs?
(Hear.) Why, instead of publicly professing and acting
on their principles, did they resort to an armed neutrality
on the subject? (Hear, and a laugh.) Why talk of a
commission Of inquiry, the result of which we might have
half a century hence? Wby not affirm the principle which