The Sun.
London, England, 1833-05-21 00:00:00

imp' se a religious establishment upon any people by the
force of the bayonet. He had a petition (as far as the
noise in the House would allow us to bear) from Glasgow,
signed by 16,000 persons, expressing the sentiments he
had just uttered. The Hon. Member concluded by mov-
ing, as an amendment, that the revenues of the Irish
church be applied to purposes of general utility, after the
demise of the present incumbents.
Mr. CUTHBERT RIPPON said—Sir—ln rising to
second this motion, I must ask the indulgent attention of
the House for a few minutes. I cannot forbear to offer
some remarks on the subject now before us, as connected
with the all-momentous question of church reform—as
professing redress of grievances for Ireland, and as proving
the fallacy of that opinion, at one time so generally enter-
tained, of Ministers being sincere in their oft-boasted de-
sire for abolishing abuses. I maintain, Sir, that it is the
duty of an honest Government and a reformed Parliament
to examine into all parts of our political establishment to
discover and remove the abuses which exist within them ;
and I aver that, first and foremost, as aboundine in enor-
mity, as founded in injustice, as rife witih corrupt prac-
tice, is the church establishment. Two measures have been
brought forward by his Majesty's Ministers connected with
this subject—that now under consideration, the other far
commuting the English tithes—both are alike devoid of
principle, both are offered for the professed purpose of re-
moving abuse, but with the wily intent of inducing the
people to submit for some rime longer to that system of
ecclesiastical plunder and oppression, beneath which they
hay, for past centuries groaned; both desire to maintain
that monstrous grievance, that intolerable injustice, the
compelling of men to pay for the upholding of a form of
religious worship to which they cannot conscientiously
subset ibe. Does the Noble Lord believe that the people
will he deluded by this imposture on reform? Does he
imagine they will consent to accept this, as earnest of the
benefits that were promised to them by the Bill ? I
entreat the Noble Lord not to deceive himself. I ask the
Noble Lord to consider the ecclesiastical condition of the
United Kingdom. More than one half of the people
are opposed to that form of religious niinistrath n
which the State upholds. A double tax for maintain-
ing their own ministers and the State teachers, is
imposed upon Dissenters and Roman Catholics, the
greater part of whom are comprised in the
middle and lower classes, while the church of the wealthy
and titled great, is wholly maintained at the public
expense. Lay aside, for one moment, all religious
considerations view this simply as a civil ques-
tion. Is it not the first duty of a Government to
promote the general happiness, to remove all just
causes fir discontent, to consolidate its power and
authority, by attaching to its I ule the affections and ap-
probation of the people? Can such be the case, when
the tnajoi ity ale aggrieved by that most impertinent in-
terference, the meddling with their choice and conduct in
matters of religion ? You outrage common sense—you
defy public opinion—you deny right —you refuse justice ;
but mark, by this course of proceeding you hasten the
fall of that which you desire to uphold. No defenders,
however zealous—no supporters, however devoted—no
protectors, however powerful, will save the establishment
from early destruction. But now, as regards redress to
Ireland, the Hon. Secretary for the Colonies said on a
former occasion, that " the law must be feared ere it be
loved ;" and also " that remedi il and coercive measures
need not necessarily proceed purl passu." I deny the
first position; I admit the last ; but I declare that jus-
tice should precede force. Laws must be equal and good
before they deserve respect or protection. I consider that
it was our first duty to examine into the grievances of
Ireland—to hear her complaints with patience and atten-
tion—to prove our sense of justice by redressing her
wrongs—and thus having performed our part of the con-
tract, then call upon or compel the fulfilment of hers;
but not in the first instance to adopt the tyrant's short
remedy for all inconvenience, the employment of force,
but rather to adapt our measures to the sense and feeling
of the people. Let them discover our willingness to re-
medy t rrors, to repair neglect, to relieve injuries, and
thus disarm their hostility by our benevolence and our
fairness. What have you done ? You have passed a
Bill of coercion, you have skilfully compounded from all
former measures of harshness the very esence of seve-
rity, and now you offer this Bill in discharge of
redress, a Bill alike disgraceful to you, and insult-
ing to the people.—(Hear, hear.) What can induce
a Ministry, at one time so popular and confided in, now
so odious and suspected, thus to depart from their pledges
and professions ? Are they ignorant of the rights of their
fellow men ? They cannot be. Are they indifferent to
their just claims? I will not suppose them to be. Do
they want moral courage to be honest to their country,
and to themselves? Here lies the truth—they resist
that which is the right, for the contemptible consideration
of preserving the composition of an ill-assorted Cabinet,
and of avoiding that collision with another branch of the
State, which, sooner or later, must happen. A Corn Bill,
a property tax, many other inevitable and just measures
equally with church reform, will produce this same dreaded
result. I tell the Noble Lord, that any Minister who will
do justice to the people, who will give to them (what they
are determined to have) cheap government and equal
laws, must diminish the monopolizing privileges of the
aristocracy.—(Cheers.) By what means, let Inc ask, have
the younger branches of that aristocracy as yet escaped the
miseries of a law of primogeniture, that very basis of the
order ? By being quartered upon, and supported by, the
public establishments. Does any reasonable man, then,
believe that this body will voluntarily give up their pe-
cuniary advantages—will willingly dispel the flattering il-
lusion of their fancied greatness, for the mere purpose of
promoting the common good ?—in a word, that they will
defer their interests to the interests of the commonwealth?
The experience of the last two years, abundantly
proves the fallacy of such presumption. But let us
examine what is the composition of this formidable body,
which a Ministry, professing to be honest—backed by the
power of the nation, hesitates and fears to brave and
defy. Behold, a small knot of persons, whose pre-emi-
nence only consists in au artificial distinction, whose
nominal superiority was created by public preference,
is permitted for the public advantage, and is dependent for
future continuance upon public !avour. All rulers are the
servants of the nation—power is intrusted to them to serve
the common good, and when they cease thus to employ it,
their privileges must be withdrawn. The Hon. Member
for St. Andrew's said, on a former evening, " that the

existence of Protestantism and C ristianity were depen-
dent upon the upholding of the Irish church establish-
ment." I would ask this Hon. Gentleman whether this
church has any charter from heaven, any spiritual prero-
gative to prove its pretensions to primacy? I tell him
that it is a mere Parliamentary church•—not the ally, but
the subject of the state, its constitution and existence are
dependent upon the acts and authority of Parliament.
The Hon. Baronet (the Member for the University of
Oxford) denies the right of Parliament to interfere with
that which he calls the property of the church. I tell
the Hon. Baronet that the property enjoyed by the nr-
tional church is national property, to be employed for the
national use; and every proposition such as the present,
which tends to deprive a body of our countrymen of their
fair share of advantage in this property, is a direct mea-
sure of fraud. lam aware that these opinions are not in
accordance with those of many Members of this House,
but 1 can assure the House that I shall ever state that

which I believe to be the truth. I court not notoriety;
my sentiments are not hastily put forth—they are the
results of deep consideration and honest conviction. The

opinions out of these walls on this and many other sub-
jects are very different from those within them, and I
have no fear but that I shall ere long discover the conta-

giousness of public sentiment,around
me. B
bytehetians ltearesd
ittonineayo,f
many who now sit un
I shall enjoy the satisfaction of having discharged my
duty to my country, in resisting the proposition for main-
taining the Church Establishment of Ireland, and in advo•
catjog that princip'e of eternal right, that every man
should worship his Creator without penalty or restraint.
Lord ALTHORP was glad to hear the Hon.
admit that his opinions were not in unison with those of
others on this point—an admission which be (Lord A.)
believed to be very well warranted by the fact.—(Hear.)
With respect to the proposition of the Hon. Member op-
posite, he felt that he should not be doing that which was
necessary for the advantage of public business, or for the
benefit of the House, if he enteled into a lengthened ar-
gument. to prove 'that a church establishment was de-
sirable.—(Hear, heir.) He should only observe, that he
thought it desirable for the advantage of religion. The
Hon. Member seemed to asiutne that all which he did
not approve of must necessarily be detrimental. Surely,
before he came to such a sweeping conclusion, he might
have considered that it was possible he could be mistaken.
He should say no more than that he could not possibly
consent to the amendment.

Colonel EVANS did not think the measure would
answer the public expectation even in England, and most
certainly it would not in Ireland. He regretted that the
Bill did not go much further.

Mr. FINN said that the only part of the Bill that would
give satisfaction in Ireland was that which related to the
Vestry Cess.*______

_ .
Mr. ROBINSON denied the assumption of the Hon.
Member who had seconded the amendment, that the
Dissenters in England wanted an appropriation of the
church property to purposes called purposes of public uti-
lay. He knew many Dissenters in this country who
considered a church establishment extremely beneficial,