The Sun.
London, England, 1835-04-02 00:00:00

they did not do their duty; with what grace, then, could they now
turn round and complain of their successors?—( Hear.) It was
proposed to give the surplus revenue to educate the poor, but had
he not a right to ask, though there were large livings, was it not
also true that there were some very small ones, too, and if they re-
reduced the large ones, ought not the small ones to be
augmented ?—( Hear, hear.) The Church had a right to enjoy
the surplus, if there was any, but what was the total revenue now
applicable to the Irish Church ? It would turn out tht there was
not a larger amount allowed than the exigencies of the Irish Church
required. When Lord Althorp made his statement he began.with
a very remarkable expression, to the effect that on no other subject
did such great misapprehension prevail as upon the revenues of the
Irish Church. But the Hon. Gentlemen opposite contended that
if ten bishoprics could be torn away, something else could also
be spared.—( Hear.) Was that the way to look at the question ?
The Hon. Member for Halifax said 100,0001. a year might be
saved from the Irish Church revenue, but what would be the im-
mediate relief so boastfully promised? Why it was mummery to
call it a question of relief, for amongst the people of Ireland it
would amount to just four pence per head. It was a ridicule upon
the Irish people to suppose that such a modicum could be any relief
to them. What was there to justify the change in opinion of
Gentlemen on the otla. side ?—( Hear, hear.) He would not again
rely upon the authority of Lord Brougham, because, notwithstanding
his great talents, he was not popular upon this question with the
gentlemen on the other side ; but Lord Lansdowne was not open to
the same objection, and he said, in his place in the House of Lords,
that nothing would induce him to consent to the appropriation of
any part of the revenues of the Irish Church to other purposes
than those, or some analogous to them, to which they Mere
now by law appropriated.—( Hear, hear.) What was the difference
between the course pursued by the Government of Earl Grey and
that of the present? He saw none.—(Loud cries of " Question:")
The proposition of the Noble Lord meant one thing and professed
another—it created circumstances in order to use them.—(Re-
newed cries of " Question.") He would not trespass longer upon
the attention of the House, but would conclude by thanking them
or the indulgence they had shewn him.
Lord CLEMENTS, Mr. O'CONNELL, and several other Members
then rose together. There were loud cries for Mr. O'Connell, but
the Learned Gentleman gave way to Lord Clements.
Lord CLEMENTS then proceeded to say it might be pre-
sumptuous in him, a plain country gentleman, to come forward after
the House had listened to so many learned gentleman for a length of

time, but if the House would grant him indulgence for five minuies,he
would not trespass on their attention longer. The remarks he should
have to make would only have reference to the effect this motion would
have in Ireland. He considered, as had been said by the Gallant
Officer opposite, that a great deal of the discontent and disturbance
in Ireland might be traced to other causes besides that of religious
discord. But he would say, that unless they attempted to remove
that religious discord, all other endeavours to quiet Ireland
would be utterly ineffectual. This measure was a sine
qua non to removing religious discord. He would not pretend
to deny that Honourable Gentlemen opposite had shewn
that by means of certain laws that had lately passed, a great portion
of the surplus had been frittered away.—( Hear, hear.) He la-
mented it, but 'whose fault was it? There were two complaints
against the Protestant establishment in Ireland; one was, that the
revenues of the Church were excessive in proportion to the duties
that were to be performed, and that thereby its efficiency was di-
minished ; the other was, that it did not afford that spiritual instruc-
tion to the majority of the people, or to the poorer ranks of society
that was necessary ; and there were many who, thoughthey admitted
there was ground for the first complaint, yet they stated that the
Irish population were so anxious to get rid of the Church alto-
gether, that they were determined to resist all reduction in the
revenues of the Establishment. (" Hear, hear," from Lord
Stanley.) He admitted the Catholics of Ireland were anxious to
get rid of the Established Church.—( Ministerial cheers.) It was
no secret; but the Protestant Establishment had two objects in
view : one was, instruction in religion and moral duty,
and the other was entirely a political object, and one
which he should always condemn.—( Hear, hear.) What he advo-
cated was equality, and if he were a Catholic he would never sub-
mit to any thing but equality.—(Hear, hear.) The Roman Ca-
tholic Religion was established in Ireland as much as any religion
could be, and he regretted it, for he wished to see Protestant
ascendancy established, so far as the doctrines of Protestantism
was concerned, as he believed they were true, and inculcated
charity and peace. As it is, unless perfect religious equality
was established—by which he meant a diminution of the re-
venues of the Protestant Church to meet the legitimate wants
of the people, and the payment of the Roman Catholic Clergy
by the State—no peace could be expected in Ireland. [When the
Noble Lord sat down, there were loud cries of " O'Connell,
O'Connell," from all parts of the House.]
In the midst of the confusion occasioned by these calls,
Mr. BORTH WICK rose to address the House, but such was
the uproar that ensued, not a word could be heard from the Hon.
Member. For five or six minutes he stood, apparently addressing
the House, and making the most violent gesticulations. At every
pause he made, the cries of—Question, question—divide, divide,
were raised. Having obtained a partial hearing, we understood
him to say that it was his intention to have given way, but as the
House would not permit him even. to state that such was his de-
termination, he was now determined to stand upon his right,
and therefore begged to move, that the resolution of the Noble
Lord be read.

The SPEAKER accordingly read the resolution.
The SPEAKER thought that Hon. Members were pursuing a
course that would neither be advantageous to themselves or the

House
Mr. BORTHWICK again rose amid loud cries of " Question,
question," and " Divide, divide " He could assure the House
that he would occupy only a few minutes of its time, reserving
to himself the right, should the present matter be carried further,
to explain his views and feelings upon it more in detail. He was
called upon by the Noble Lord opposite to vote for a resolution that
the House should go into Committee to determine whether the sur-
plus revenues (if there were any) of the Irish Church should
or should not be devoted to the general education of the
people of Ireland.—(Here the cries of " Divide, divide,"
and " Question, question," resounded from all parts of the House.)
The Hon. Gentleman proceeded to speak amidst so much confu-
sion, and cries of " question," that he was inaudible for some
minutes. He had the deepest respect for the deliberations of the
House, and if he had used any improper or disrespectful expres-
sion, it was not intentional.—( Question. ) Was that the hearing
which the House granted to those who appealed to its indulgence ?
—(Great noise, and cries of Oh, and Question.) He had only
intended to speak on the two grounds to which he had alluded, and
reserved to himself the right of saying more in the Committee if
the question should be referred to one.—(Here the noise and the
cries of " Question," and " Divide," became tremendous, and the
Hen. Member sat down.
Mr. O'CONNELL--I should not trespass at this late hour of
the night, but that I am unwilling to allow so important a discus-
sion to the interests of Ireland to be passed over without offering
a few observations on the subject. I shall endeavour to be as brief
as possible, and shall not allow myself to be carried away by the
cheers, nor put down by the ridicule of either side of the House.
I am an humble individual—(Cheers)—and, as I am, I have a duty
to perform which does not fall to every Honourable Mem-
ber of this House.—(Hear, hear.) You have been four nights—
important nights debating on a subject of deep interest to Ireland.
To-morrow's post will carry the result of your deliberations what
is to be done—either that there is a hope of better council and good
Government to Ireland, or of deep exasperation. You ought to be
aware that for 400, years Ireland has been misgoverned. Who is
it that will deny me this ? I never heard any body yet hardy
enough to deny so known a fact, and if there was I would shout him
down, and treat the denial with contempt. The Gallant Officer
did not qualify it by denying it, but by saying that it was not on
the score of religion. " Religion," says he, "is not the cause of
it." These are consequences of comparative inferiority. On the
one hand, there was the petulant and overstriding spirit of one
party, with the domination and the bigotry of another. By the end
of this night's debate we shall know whether there is to be a better
system established, and.whether we are to hope for a better form•
of Government to be substituted. I think the value of this decla-
ration consists in its being an earnest pledge that better days are at
hand. It is not who shall be the Ministry, but it ought to go either
to a denial of justice—the hundredth thousandth denial, or it ought
to be as the first proclamation that a better system was about to be
given to that country. Oh, I should be disposed to trespass on
the House in stating her grievances. Who is it that denies her
capabilities? Who is it that denies her fertility? Who is it
that deniesher abundance—or who is it that denies the endowments
which nature and Nature's God hath given her. What country has
so many opportunities—What country so miserable ? You have
produced it. The British Government, I arraign you for this. It
has been the system of Government you have adopted towards Ire-
land that have produced these effects which you now behold.—
And why should it be so ? The people oft.ngland are protestants.
The Church of the people is the Church of the State, and there is that
community between the Church and the people, that they both blend.
The religion of the people of Scotland is the religion of the State.
There is no party feeling exists between them, because this reli-
gion was made subject to the requirements of the country. But I
agree with the Hon. Member for Weymouth. Ido not want to
make the religion of the country the religion of the State ;
(Cries of " Hear, hear")—for I mean to say that there is
nothing so destructive as to make the Church so rich as to
be too attentive to the affairs of the State—inattentive to the
wants of its dependants. Ireland does not want the religion of the
people to be the religion of the State—if the Protestant be the
better religion let it succeed, and if it be the better it will succeed.
Nay I say more, that it ought to succeed.—(Hear, hear, hear. )
But can you, under the present system, approach the Irish peasant,
and ask hire to change his faith while you address him in the garb
of an oppressor.—( Cheers.) I assure the House I am passing as
rapidly over the topics which are passing in my mind as rapidly as I
possibly can, and I lay down the position that Ireland has been long
and grievously misgoverned.—( Hear, hear.) lam ready to prove
it. I can show distinctly that cue principle should be extended to
the three countries, and I ask you no longer to give all the wealth,
and every thing that is raised from the people, to a Church to
which they do not belong, and from whose doctrines they con-
scientiously dissent.—(Loud cheers.) Let me here just say
that I cordially concur with my Friend the Member for Wey-
mouth. If the Protestant religion should increase under the
circumstances he has mentioned, the Members of it can
fairly and honestly come into this House, and ask for an increase
of its revenues. There is not one particle of anything savouring of
bigotry or of exclusiveness—not one particle of any thing which
calls upon you to act against Protestantism in the resolution, or in
the system proposed by the Noble Lord, of which I am
now the advocate. Why do you oppose the motion as Protestants
and Statesmen? Do you oppose it on the ground of religion or
of State policy ? Have you the ground of religious motives? For
three hundred years you have used every instrument to convert the
Catholics to Protestantism. No such scenes were ever witnessed
in any country as were enacted in that.—(Cheers.) All the power
of the State—all the emaciating cruelties of a barbarous Penal
Code—were put in force to induce the Irish people to abandon
their faith. You gave to the Protestant religion dignity, and
state, and worldly honours, and you loaded the professors of the
religion of the majority of the people with penalties and disgrace.
They had despoiled their altars—they had profaned their tem-
ples—deprived them of their churches, and threw every ob-
stacle in the way of the ancient faith. Could that be done in
England ? Would it be tolerated in this country ? Would any
man be so mad as to think that the two millions of British Catholics
would be allowed to make the Catholic religion the religion of the
State ?---that they could make the people pay the tithes, and
oblations and offerings to the clergy, whose services they required
not ? If the attempt were made, it is not in Parliament they
would then be discussing the question. It would long since have
been decided elsewhere. Did not the people of England before
dispute the right of a Monarch who attempted to do violence to their
consciences, and sent him a fugitive and a miserable outcast from his
kingdom ? The experiment hod been tried, but it had not succeeded.
I will not detain the House by particular instances, but I will take the
county Kerry, which it has been stated, in the year 1731, ac-
cording to Parliamentary returns, had a population in which
the Protestants were to the Catholics as twelve to one. What
is the population now ? I shall be able to chew the House, that
the proportion of the Protestants to the Catholics now is as
fifty-two to one.—(Hear. ), Have you succeeded there ?—( Cheers. )
Take any other part of the country, and you will find•that the re-
sult has been precisely similar. Sir, I would not have attempted
to address the House at all if it had net been contended that as