The Sun.
London, England, 1867-06-25 00:00:00

IRISII RAILWAYS.

In answer to a question from the Earl of KIMBERLEY,
The Earl of DERBY said that there had been nume-
rous propositions as to the lines of railway in Ireland, and
it bad been referred to several committees of gentlemen on
both sides of the question, and it was therefore evident
that the utmost fairness had been exercised in the matter.
After a tow other remarks, the subject dropped.
ESTABLISHED CHURCH IN IRELAND.

EARL RUSSELL moved for a return of all the
matters connected with the Established Church in
Ireland especially as concerned its revenue, and said
that he did so with a great deal of responsibility, for
he knew that already they had a great question
before them. He would not ask them to consider it this
session ; but the object of his motion was to prepare their
minds for the discussion of this anomalous question in the
next session. It might be urged that the Church
of England in Ireland was a great advantage to
the country, but still there were not many facts to be
adduced in opposition to the enforcement of the Liturgy of
the Church of England. Through many years had there
been such enforcement, and in the time of King William
ho accepted the Crown of England on condition that no
bishops should be enforced upon the country of Scotland.
The consequence had been that order had been
preserved in that country, and we now saw the wis-
dom of William the Third . and . Lord Somers in
their administration in that country.. He now came
to the condition of the kindred kingdom of Ireland, whero
even now distraction prevailed, through the fact that the
same wise regulation had not been carried out there. It
struck him that, if every farthing could be obtained that
might from that establishment, it would not give satisfaction
to the Irish people. The noble earl then animadverted
upon the enforcement of any Established Church in Ire-
land. Ile would.direct their attention to what was said on
the subject. Mr. Grattan had said that unless there was given
some concession in Ireland there would never bo any quietude
and Sir Robert Peel, whose clear mind almost instinctively
.grasped the question, said that there would be no peace
or harmony till such concession was made. It had
been stated that there were two religious hierarchies
in lrelend, the one which represented the minority, the
other the majority, and would it ever be feasible that the
two should amalgamate ? Would the one which was ex-
cluded,. and yet was an aspiring rival, be likely to tolerate
the other ?. ..It was evident front the tone of the Irish
that the prophecy which Sir Robert Peel uttered
in 1817 was cor4irmed in May, 1867. Was it to be won-
dered at that when men saw that one portion of the popu-
lation bad all the temporalities to their own Church, and
they had none, that they should bo diSsatisfied? It was
with the people of Ireland a sentimental wrong. Holding
it to be necessary that the subject should be immediately
and thoroughly considered, so that any required legisla-
tion should not be relegated to a future reformed Parlia-
ment, ho submitted his proposal :—" That an humble ad-
dress be presented to her Majesty, praying that her Majesty
will be pleased to give directions that by the operation of
a Royal Commission or otherwise full and accurate infor-
mation be procured as to the nature and amount of the
property and revenues of the Established Church in Ire-
land, with a view to their More productive management
and to their more equitable application for the benefit of
the Irish people."
Lord CAIRNS, after remarking that Lord Russell's
opinions respecting the division of the Irish Church
estates had undergone an entire change within 12 months,
proceeded to deny .that the temporalities of the
.Irish
Church had ever been the property of the Roman Catholic
Church, claiming for tithes the strong right of prescrip-
tion. He admitted that inequalities did exist in the appli-
cation of the Irish Church funds, but insisted that the in-
come was not in larger proportion to the members of the
Church than in England. The destruction of the Esta-
blished Church, whose function it was to teach the truth,
would, he contended, produce almost fatal social and po-
litical consequences to the landed interest and to the con-
nexion with this country ; but he disputed the necessity
for any such extreme measure es the infringement of rights
sanctioned by law and long existence for the sake of fur-
thering the views of the Liberation Society, who were•far
more earnest in the attack upon the Irish Church than
were the people of Ireland, and strongly urged the house
net to assent to the motion.

Lord KIMBERLEY replied to what he styled the "no
surrender" speech of Lord Cairns, insisting that if his argu-
ments were to prevail, no Parliamentary interference with
the Irish Church could over take place. The proposition
now suggested he regarded as extremely moderate and
just, and it was precisely because he did not desire to see
the object of the Liberation Society accomplished that he
supported the motion. The Protestants of Ireland were
the greatest friends of England, but their sympathies
would not be alienated by an act of justice which extended
to the Roman Catholics and Presbyterians a share of the
religious endowments now monoplised by themselves.
The Bishop of OSSORY said that on former occasions
inquiry had shown how unfounded were charges that had
been brought against the Irish Church, and the same re-
sult would follow on this occasion if a fair investigation
were made. Ile moved that the proposition be amended
by adding to it, " And also as to the means by which they
may be made best to promote the efficiency of the Esta-
blished Church in Ireland."
The Bishop of DOWN allowed that there were serious
anomalies in the distribution of the Irish Church revenues,
and suggested a plan whereby he thought tilts could be
remedied.
Lord CLANCARTY opposed the motien.
The Duke of ARGYLL, dissenting from Lord Cairns,
contended that tithes were not the property of the Church,
but a reserved rentcharge upon the land, with which it
was in the power of the State to deal. Ile therefore dis-
puted the absolute claim of the Irish establishment, or of
the Roman Catholic Church, to those funds. Advert'ng
to the Irish Church, he expressed satisfaction that its
claims as a missionary Church bad not been put forward on
the present occasion, as he disputed the propriety of the
State to undertake the duty of proselytising, and regarding
the arrangement matle at the period of the Union as
one not made with the Irish nation, but only with
a small fraction, he argued that it could not be re-
garded as a bargain that had been definitely agreed to and
Expressing
between Church and
a preference for an
no t
eventualto b be
separationrecou i reconsidered.
or ef d
t. h e
relations
State, he approved the motion, which was simply one for
iintigqs.uiry, without involving a pledge as to future proceed-
ings.
Lord DENBIGH thought the Established Church in
Ireland was an anomaly and a grievance, but expressed
confidence in the declaration of the Government to deal
fairly with the question.

Lord CLANRICARDE favoured the payment of the
Roman Catholic clergy, as being just and expedient..
Lord DERBY, after commenting upon the altered terms
of Lord Russell's motion, which would pledge the house to
the alienation of the Irish Church propel-6,, announced his
willingness to consent to the appointment of a commission
to inquire and to obtain information, observing that he did
not pledge himself to the principle that the property of the
Irish Church was inalienable, a remark that provoked
cheers from the Opposition and a retort from the speaker
that at least it rested upon equally strong ground as Wo-
burn Abbey. Lord Derby denied that hitherto the State
had endowed any religious body in Ireland, and said there
was no precedent for depriving one Church of property
which it had enjoyed for 300 years in order to endow an-
other Church. The Government were desirous of consi-

dering the subject and obtaining full information, and,
therEfore, he suggested the limitation of the motion to an
address for a commission, without the addition of the latter
portion of Lord Russell's notice.
Lord GREY concurred in the punestion, believing that