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

them ; that the lion. and learned gentleman himself would
never attempt to justify;" that then existed re-
specting,ibe i•xerciscd by the
indulgence,:
Popes. He (Sir:;;. that the hon. and
tlu.i (' church
Protestants.
actthe of union that
learned gentleman
'ePnitri jeired- :li; alit
tc'ei: in
nt the
the Protestant-faitli o.l.initt continue the established reli-
gion of the country. - In stating the opinions Whieli he had
he had only expressed formerly entertained by many
members of the present government. He recollected when
he had the satisfaction of actin!! with Lord-Plunket, one
of the most eloquent and able advocates of the Catholic
claims, and with whom he ( Sir R. Peel) then differed on,
the subject, he came to the s.uge conclusion with that noble
and learned lord as to the propriety of maintaining the esta-
blished religion in Ireland. Lord Plunket had stated that
the reformed Protestant church in Ireland was not main-
tained for the religious instruction of all, but that it should
also be richly endowed, and that the heads of it should be
placed amongst the nobles of the land, and he had no hesi-
tation in adding that the abolition of it would be severing
the bonds of union between the two countries. He thought
that they should not on light grounds sanction such
a principle as that -a different appropriation of the sur-
plus revenues of-the church was expedient; for such a
principle once ,established would, he was convinced, be
dangerous alike to the foundation of all religion. It would
be calculated to alienate the minds of Protestants who had
consented to the relaxatiOn of the remnant of
.Catholic dis-
abilities on the strongest assurance that the removal of
those disabilities would redress every grievance and restore
political equality,- (Hear hear.) Were they now to tell
these men who had so consented, and who now complained
that the
.faithful ministers of their-el-lurch were robbed by
every species of combination and resiStance..(Hear), were
they, he repeated, now to tell them that the revenues of
the Protestant church might be severed from that church,
and appropriated to the establishment of another faith,
against which they protested? (Hear, hear.) Such a
course of proceeding would, he contended, give a shock to
Protestant feeling inireland, the consequences of which
it would not be an easy matter to foretel. It would argue
an indifference on the part of the legislature to all reli-
gion ; and in agreeing to a principle which had nothing
whatever to do .with truth, but which related merely to
civil policy, they. would be adopting a course that was cal-
culated not only to shake the foundation of all other pro-
perty, but to sever the links, which bound Ireland to' this
country by its legislative union, almost as effectually as if
they had concurred in the motion which the hon. and
learned member for Dublin had on a former occasion
brought forward on that subject. (The right hon. mem,
ber resumed his seat amidst loud and long-continued
cheering.)

Mr. O'REILLY must express his regret that the ques-
tion had not at once been met by a direct negative. That
was the course which the noble lord ought to have taken,
and if the noble lord had.taken that course he Should have
had his most cordial support. (Hear.) He (Mr. O'Reilly)
was the advocate of civil and religious 'freedom'; and,
therefore, et an honest and conscientious Roman Catholic,
he never could consent to deprive the Protestant Church
of any portion of the revenues which were attached to it.
He considered the appropriation of the revenues of the
Roman Catholic Church, at the time of the reformation,
a monstrous robbery, and he hoped that they would not
now sanction the perpetration of a similar robbery, under
preterice.of purchasing the allegiance of the Catholics of
Ireland: • The allegiance of the Catholics of Ireland -was,
he could inform them, to be secured by no such Sacri-
fice_;._ and for, his • art he should- never wish to see
the efiurch of which he was a member connected with
the government. He desired the Roman Catholic
Church in Ireland to remain free and independent as it
was, and in this opinioo he was supported by the
highest' authorities of 'that church. (Hear.) On his
own behalf, and he might,. say on the part of the
great majority of the Rpriaiot Catholics of Ireland, he
must disavow the doctrines!laM down by the honourable
and learned member for Dublin. It was not true, as that
honourable and learned gentleman had asserted,' that the
Catholics of that country entertained any conscientious ob 7
jections to the payment of those imposts which they were
bound by law to bear. (Hear, hear.) Undoubtedly they
had resisted the payment of tithes, but then that resistance
did not arise from any conscientious objections which 'they
entertained against the system, but merely from a dislike
to the manner in which tithes were levied. The name of
tithes had become hateful to them from them.anner of their
collection ; but, although this was the case, he was. still
satisfied in his own mind that the better order of Catholics
would not object to pay an honest and fair computation.
(Hear, hear.) He had never, whether in or out of the
house, advocated the total extinction of tithes, as it was
understoOd by, some parties in Ireland, nor did he wish to
see them taken away from the Protestant church, although
be did not belong to that. church. For his part he strongly
objected against any interference with the chnrch esta-,
Wished by law, and he did so because he regarded that
Church as the great bulwark of Christianity in these coun-
tries, as, in fact, the protector of all other Christian esta-
blishments, particularly that to which he himself belonged.
(Hear, hear.) The discreditable struggles that were con-
tinually going forward on the Continent of America fur-
nished a powerful argument in favour of a church esta-
blishment. The Catholic church did not require any-por-
tion of the endowments of the. established church, having,
so long existed and flourished witheut such assistance ; and
therefore he for one should not only reject but strenuously
oppose any measure of the kind that might be proposed.
Mr. CLAY felt the utmost reluctance at being obliged
to oppose the noble lord in the course which he had taken
on this occasion admitting, as he did, that he and all who
thought as he did were bound to support a cabinet which
the events of the last few days had so materially altered.
He would not deny that the government had parted from
talent; but then they had preserved that which was of far
more consequence to the country, namely, their unity of
purpose. (Hear, hear.).
.It was, he could assure the
noble lord, with the utmost. reluctance that he took any
step which was likely to cause the government embarrass-
ment; but, although he had a strong inclination to vote
for the noble lord's amendment, he could not; after what
had fallen froth the right hon. gentleman the ex-Secretary
for the Colonies, and the right. hon. baronet the member
for Tamworth, justify himself in taking such a course.
The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Stanley) had declared
that he would not under circumstances consent to the
alienation of church property, 'no, not even if a Protestant
was not to he found in any one parish in Ireland ; and
therefore the members of that house would be guilty of a
dereliction of their duty if they did not place on record the
fact that .they concurred in _ the principle of a measure
which they wished to see carried into effect. It had been
said that the King'would not consent to the appropriation
of the revenues of the church to other than ecclesiastical
purposes ; but this he (Mr. Clay) did not believe, and, if
any doubt had existed in his mind as to the course which
he ought to take, the arguments of the right hon. baronet
the member for Tamworth were conclusive with him.
Not only he but others of the Tory party had taunted his
Majesty's Ministers with practising something like delu-
sion. They had said that it was quite possible for the
Government to appoint a commission without being sincere
or honest in their intentions, and hence it was that it was
in the highest degree important that they should affirm the
present resolution. The right hon. baronet the member
for Tamworth had said, that if this principle were acknow-
ledged as to Ireland, it would soon be extended to this
country ; but he would tell the right hon. baronet, that
the English people never would submit to make Ireland
one vast camp, one great garrison, for' the purpose of
forcing upon a reluctant people a church to which they
were hostile—a church which might be said to be in many
places without a congregation. But it had been asserted
that the rights of church property were the same as the
rights of every other description of property. To such a
proposition he could not assent, and he submitted that it
was a gross delusion to sa: that a clear distinction did not
exist between the rights of the property of individuals and
those relating to the property of the church. Could it be
maintained for a single moment that a clergyman who had
no duty to perform, who had no congregation,. in short, to
attend to, was as much entitled to his income of 2,0001. as
the owner of an absolute estate in possession had to the
rent which it produced ? In his opinion the true nature of
church property was that it was a fund held in trust by the'
state to be applied in providing moral and religious in-
struction for the people, and, if this was so, could' it be
.doubted that it was competent for the state to interfere in
its distribution ? He thought not. It had been said that,'
according, to these principles, tithes could not be pro-
perty; but this he denied. He was favourable to a
proper commutation of tithes ; but, although that was the
case, he was prepared to contend that- tithes constituted a
species of property with which the State had nothing
whatever to do. (Hear, hear.) It was the duty of every
State to provide for the moral and religious education of
I the people, and this was precisely what in principle
now proposed to be done by this resolution. It had beenvas
said by Dr. Johnson that, however good a church esta-
' blishment might be, it . could' only be defended on the
Iground that it formed the belief of the great majority of
the people; and he (Mr. Clay) was willing to admit that
they were bound to enter upon the appropriation of church
property to other than the purposes to which that property
was now applied with very great caution. He must say
I that he never did like the way, in which his hon. friend's
resolution was worded; but still, as it amounted only to
I nb anoale lordsser wouldtionof have exercisedassertionfact,ana obfettrtuetrhd,ihscerethtiooungi,hft
the
• ' stead of moving the previous question, he had at once boldly
assented to the right of Parliament to deal with the church
gorda
Cp,r,omptnelitsysioonf
slurcelanhasd, anhehdadlollowed it up
described.
gabdythapepnooibniteinl
of thetaken this course, he should have had his (Mr.
• support but, after what had fallen from the antagonists
principle contained in the resolution, he could not
avoid voting against the amendment which the noble lord
proposed. It was ,the
of the noble lord not to have
come forward with a manly, straightforward, sincere des
claratien, and if he had done so he might rest satisfied that
hii Government would have insured for itself the sapport
of the people, on whose support alone they could with any-
thing like confidence rely. •
Mr. HAWES observed that the speeches which had
converted the hon. gentleman the .member_ for the. Tower
liaralet3 from his original purpose had produced a very dif-