The Sun.
London, England, 1835-05-28 00:00:00

THE IRISH CHURCH.

Mr. SHAW said he had several petitions to present that re-
ferred to the Established Church of Ireland. One was from
the county Louth, signed by 1,500 Protestants of that county
—another from the diocese of Clogher—and a third from the
clergy of the diocese of Killaloe and Kilfonsa, all of them de-
precating the principle, in the strongest manner, of appropria-
ting Church property to any but Church purposes. They pray
the House to extend its protection to the Protestant Church
of Ireland, established by law, and guaranteed by the Act of
Union. They further state that if the principles of appropria-
ting Church property be applied to Ireland, where the
Protestants are few in number, compared with the Ro-
man Catholics, it will hold out a premium for the ex-
tirpation of Protestants, and that the adoption of any
measure which should have that object in view would be
a mockery of all legislative engagements, and the violation of
a solemn national compact. They also begged to inform the
House firmly, but respectfully, that any such measure would
put an end to the deep bond of union that now subsists between
the Protestants of both countries, and finally would lead to a
separation of them. He (Mr. S.) would not now go into the
general discussion of this question, but would merely state
some facts which had come to his knowledge in reference to
this subject. He would state the facts in the words of the
Rev. Gentleman who had communicated them to him. The
Rev. Gentleman is vicar of Killaloe,—he alludes in his letter
to a statement made by the Noble Lord, that the Protestants
of Killaloe were only 2,000, whereas the numbers are 15,263.
—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord also stated that in the
parish of Tullamore—

Mr. D. BROWNE rose to order. He did not think it
proper to allude to statements made in that House in the ab-
sence of -the Noble Lord to whom they were attributed.

Mr. SHAW considered himself perfectly in order to allude
to statements made in that House, for the purpose of explana-
tion. His Lordship is reported to have stated that in the
parish of Tullamore the tithe composition was set down at 4741.
and that it only contained 120 Protestants. Instead of that,
by the return made to the Commission of Inquiry, the number
of Churchmen is 1,254-4 Hear, hear, hear.) The Hon.
Member must therefore see the importance of not allowing
facts thus stated to go uncontradicted. Another fact in refe-
rence to this case, is that of the non-residence of the curate
in a certain parish, which the Noble Lord instanced as one of
the proofs to show the necessity of the Church Reform measure.
It was said the curate resided out of the parish—that the par-
son lived 15 miles from the church, and that the sexton sold
spirits at the church. yard gate. What was the fact as to this
threefold charge against the curate, the parson, and the sex-
ton ? Why, that there was not one word of truth in it from
beginning to end.—( Cheers from the Opposition.) It was
known to many Members of the House that the curate (Mr.
Laird) lived in the parish, and actually boarded and lodged in
the families of some of Mr. O'Connell's relatives. So much with
respect to the curate, who had been stated as not residing
there ; then with respect to the clerk—the statement of
the clergyman was, that he had been clerk for six years,
and that he had not only resided there during that time,
but he had filled the office of schoolmaster. With respect to
the sexton selling spirits in the churchyard, the clergyman
stated that he was a most pious man, and that during his life
he had never sold spirits without a license, nor in the church-
yard. This statement the clergyman expressed his readiness
to prove the accuracy of upon oath. Ile (Mr. Shaw) believed
that the statements that had gone forth were not for the pur-
pose of reforming the Church, but in order to set up a prin-
ciple, which he believed would be the first step, not only to
destroy the connection between Church and State in Ireland,
but in all parts of the country.
Sir GEO. CLERK presented similar petitions from pa-
rishes in the county of Meath.
Lord FRANCIS EGERT ON presented petitions from
Salford and Manchester, signed by 10,500 persons, stating
their alarm at the present situation of the Irish Church, their
regret that the measures proposed by the late Government had
not been carried into effect, and praying the House for protec-
tion to the Church Establishment. The petition was signed
by many respectable Dissenters, and also a Roman Catholic
gentleman named Travers. The Noble Lord also presented a
petition from Lancashire, signed by 9,500 persons, in favour
of the Irish Church, and deprecating in strong language the
course that had been pursued towards it by the present Ministry
and those who supported them.
Mr. RICE TREVOR presented a petition from Durham,
praying for protection to the Irish Church, and against the
appropriation clause in the Irish Tithe Bill. It was the Hon.
Member's decided conviction, that if measures like the pre-
sent were passed into a law, no property in the country would
be safe.

Mr. MARK PHILLIPS felt it necessary to offer a few
observations upon the petition which had just been presented
by the Noble Lord, more especially as the House would be
shortly called upon to carry into effect the resolution that had
been agreed to, relative to the appropriation of the surplus
revenue of the Irish Church. He knew not what exertions
might have been made to obtain signatures to the petition in
question, nor did he mean to question its authenticity in any
way ; but this he would say, that the signatures bore a very
small proportion to the population of the town from which it
came.—( Hear.) He was glad to find there was so small a
number representing such sentiments as were contained in that
petition.—(Hear, hear.) He would beg leave to refer the
House to the opinions expressed by his Right Hon Colleague,
who had since accepted the office of President of the Board
of Trade.—(Hear, hear.) At the late election, the Right
Honourable Gentleman had expressed his opinions pretty
freely, and he would say that the result of that election spoke
the deliberate conviction on the minds of the population of
Manchester upon this subject.---(Loud cries cf Near, hear. )
Allusions had been rrndo to one gentlemen who had signed
it, who was a Roman Catholic and a large landed proprietor.
He did not mean to cast anv imputation upon that gentleman,
or any other; but he believed he was the owner of considerable
Church property—(Loud cheers)—and if he (Mr. Phillips)
was the owner of Church property, and that he considered it
in danger, he should certainly feel it his duty to enter his pro-
test against any measure which he thought calculated to pro-
duce that effect.—(Hear, and a laugh.) The circumstances
attending the getting up of the petition were such as that it
could not be considered a petition from the county, and he
(Mr. M. Phillips) would enter his protest against its being
received as expressing the sentiments of the people of Man-
chester. —( Hear.)
Mr. FINN, as a Roman Catholic, would enter his protest
against the assertion, that the Roman Catholic Members of
that House had violated their oaths. The petitioners called
upon the House to frame an oath to prevent the Roman Ca-
tholics from interfering with Church property; but if they were
not to be believed upon their oaths, what was the use of mak-
ing forms to bind them ?—( Hear, hear.) Were there ever
such stupid, such sottish propositions submitted to the House ?

THE SUN, LONDON, TftURSD.AY, MAY 28, 1835.

What had kept the Roman Catholics out of that House for 140
years but their sacred reverence for the obligation of an oath ?
This was a fact which all the illiberality, cant, hypocrisy, and
spirit of plunder which had prevailed in Jreland had never been
able to refute or disprove. He challenged Hon. Members to
produce the same regard for the obligations of an oath
among the various sects of this country (England.)—
( Hear, hear, hear.) He would now state one fact to the
House—a Protestant Gentleman, the Member for Ennis, when
he had come to that table to be sworn, had revolted from the
oaths about to be administered to him as a Protestant Mem-
ber, and took the oaths as a Roman Catholic.—( Hear, hear.)
He (Mr. Finn) would not for the first position which fortune,
station, or empire could confer on him, take the oaths which
the Protestant Members of that Hovse were called on to take,
and in which their Roman Catholic brethren were stigmatized
as idolators.—( Hear, hear.) He believed that those persons
who assailed his (Mr. Finn's) religion were a disgrace to the
name of Protestant or any other religion. They revile the
religion of their neighbours, forgetting that pure principle of
charity without which there was not, nor could be, any reli-
gion.—(Cheers.) He (Mr. F.) spurned the base attempt
of the petitioners to obtain the opinion of that House upon
the Roman Catholic oaths, or to induce it to frame others.
The question had been a fruitful one for every bigotted indi-
vidual to pour out his rancour against the Roman Catholics—
it had formed a subject for every vile renegade print, for every
apostate unblushing print, which, the more broadly and uni-
versally the seal of public r-nrol,-.;,,,i wag ct,rnnod upon
it tbn ~, puur out I.a raticou. and ma-
lignity against his (Mr. Finn's) religion.—( Hear.) There
was a deep feeling of conviction amongst the peasantry of
Ireland, that the injustice, the miseries which they suffered,
arose from the parsons. There were, he knew, many men of
great worth amongst them, but there were others who made it
their sole business to diffuse bad feeling, and to excite discord
amongst the people of Ireland. Look at the Dean of St.
Patrick for instance, a man who received 2,5001. a-year from
his benefice. He had read a speech, an authenticated speech,
of that Rev. Gentleman, in which he denounced the Roman Ca-
tholics of Ireland as heretics, murderers, and persons utterly
incapable of faith or truth. And this was the manner in which
this Reverend recipient of 2,5001. a year abused the people
from whom he derived his income 1—( Hear, hear.) Was it
surprising, then, that the people of Ireland should feel a
sense of injustice at supporting a Church, the ministers of
which thus slandered and insulted them, and that they should
feel a deep attachment to their own clergymen, their friends
in the hour of need, and their faithful counsellors in the hour
of distress? He despised, from his soul, the cant—he was
afraid of giving expression to his feelings ; but when lan-
guage of this kind was held in that House, he called upon
the Right Hon. and Learned Recorder to come forward--
to bring forward a distinct resolution upon the subject.
When he (Mr. Finn) brought forward in that House a mo-
tion, that in every parish where 500/. a-year was the amount
of the benefice, that in such case the Protestant working
clergymen should get 1001. a-year,—how many supported
that motion ?-33. And of those who were now anxious to
distribute the superfluities of the Church among the working
clergy, not one of those zealous friends of the Church sup-
ported his motion.—( Hear, hear.) He could inform the Right
Honourable Gentleman, that the Church was as likely to
suffer from its over-zealous friends as from its bitterest ene-
mies.—( Cheers. )
Captain BERKELEY rose to say one word. It had been
stated by the Honourable and Learned Recorder of Dublin,
that those who differed from him upon the subject of the Irish
Church voted upon that occasion because they wanted to put
the late Ministry out of office, and to destroy the Church
Establishment.

Mr. SH AW—I said the great majority.
Captain BERKE LE Y did not wish to boast whether he
had as great a regard for the Established Church as the Hon.
and Learned Recorder—for himself, he believed that the
Honourable and Learned Recorder's regard did not surpass
his own ; but all he rose to say was, that so far as any impu-
tations were cast upon him as one who did so vote, he would
tell the Honourable and Learned Recorder that such imputa-
tions were neither founded on truth, justice, or charity.
Mr. SHAW had said that a great many had joined in that
vote for the purpose of overturning the Church.—(Cries of
" Name.") Many had said—at least some Hon. Members
had said—had professed that their object was to overturn the
Church.—( Cries of " Oh," and " Name.") Many, no doubt,
differed from this, but he considered that the great majority
had joined in that resolution in order to destroy the connection
between the Church and State in both countries.

Mr. BR OTHERTON said as a petition had been pre-
sented from the place which he represented, he begged
leave to offer a few words. It was not his intention to
disprove the respectability of the parishioners, but he must say
that 10,000 out of so large a constituency was a very great
portion.—( Hear, hear.) It appeared to him that this was not
a question of religious principle, but simply a question of
money.—(Tremendous cheering from the Irish Members.)
If the established religion be the Christian religion—a religion
founded on justice, seeking to procure peace and good will—it
was a bad compliment, at the best, to that religion, to say that
it would be overturned unless it were supported by the money
of the country. He must say, that in voting for the resolution,
proposed by the Noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home
Department, he ( Mr. B.) did not vote with a view to put
down the Established Church, or to do anything having a ten-
dency to weaken the religious feelings of the country. His
object was to promote peace and tranquillity in Ireland, to do
justice to those who had too often suffered great injustice, and
to promote the interests of this country, by endeavouring to
promote good order in that part of the empire, and also to
prove his respect for religion by standing up on behalf of
justice and humanity, rather than by exciting improper and
acrimonious feelings amongst the people of Ireland. (Cheers. )
Mr. RUTH VEN was exceedingly surprised at the perti-
nacity with which these petitions were presented. He had
some hope that the Noble Lord (Egerton) who had presented
one of these petitions would have had the delicacy of not
pressing it upon the House, as a more unjust, audacious, and
slanderous petition he had never read. They were told that
some respectable names were attached to the petition, and that
one of them was that o f a gentleman of great respectability.
If such a person's name were attached to the petition, it dis-
graced him as a gentleman and a man. They were told, as an
excuse, that this gentleman derived his income from Church
property--
Lord F. EGERTON—The name of the gentleman to
whom the Hon. Member alludes is not attached to the petition.
Mr. RUT HVE N—lf there were any other gentleman of
respectability amongst these petitioners, he would say that he
had disgraced himself both as a citizen and a private gentle-
man. Such a petition ought not to be allowed to lie on the
table. The language of petitions to that House ought to be
clear, distinct, and not liable to be misunderstood.—(Hear,
hear, hear.) They ought to know what the petitions ap-
plied for.—( Hear, hear.) It was not to be tolerated
that Members of that House should be spoken of in such lan-
guage as that of the present petition. What did the peti-
tioners mean by Irish agitators ? That House should riot
allow petitions containing such vague charges to be pre-
sented in this manner. It was a practice that was too often
resorted to, and was only calculated to create ill-feeling
among the Members of that House, and the people at large.
He would state with respect to the assertion of the Right
Hon. Member, that they were not applicable to him, and they
were not founded in truth.—( Cries of " Order, order.") The
petitions had not been read to any extent, and the petition
which had been read conveyed enough to show how suspici-
ously all such documents ought to be considered. The peti-
tion which had been read at length contained language which
ought not to be entertained by the House, and he trusted
therefore it would not be received.

Col. EVANS had no doubt in consequence of the statements
that had gone forth, that the measures that were intended to be
brought forward with respect to the Irish Church were calcu-
lated to destroy it altogether, that many persons really enter-
tained that opinion. With respect to receiving the petition,
he must say that it contained language which charged one
party with perjury, and another with high treason. Did it
mean to charge his Majesty's Ministers, and those who sup-
ported the course they had adopted, with that offence ? If it
did not convey a distinct charge of that nature the petition was
certainly a most senseless one.—( Cheers.)
Mr. WILSON PATTEN bore testimony to the respecta-
bility of the persons who signed the petition.
Lord FRANCIS EGERTON observed, that if be thought
any portion of the petition charged any person with high trea-
son, he should have thought it his duty not to present the pe-
tition. Such, however, was not the construction which he put
upon any portion of the petition. He understood its meaning
to be to express, in strong language, what their opinions were ;
hut he did not think the language used exceeded the latitude
the House allowed.

Mr. G ROTE begged to call the attention of the House to
the disrespectful language of the petition which, whether
coming from ultra-pious or ultra-radical parties, was equally
objectionable to the House.

Mr. A. TREVOR would not have presented the petition,
had he thought it contained language so strong as that which
the Hon. Member stated. The language of it he (Mr. T.)
admitted was strong, but the subject was one of great im-
portance and interest, and in some measure justified lan-
guage somesvhat stronger than the rules of the House would
permit. They had heard day after day of the persecutions that
the Roman Catholics had suffered; but he would ask, were not
the Protestants also persecuted, and were they to be con-
demned when they complained of their grievances—when
they saw measures in progress to alienate Church pro-
perty from its legitimate purposes—and which measures
they conceived to be a flagrant invasion of their most sacred
rights?—(Cheers from the Opposition.) He had several
other petitions to present from the county of Durham on the'
same ,11iiret, L':` as I.c '.l
,-
4iic,het• they were couched in the same language as that in
the petition he had just presented. As he did not, however,
see any of the Hon. Members for that county present who
differed from him ( Mr. T.) on this subject, he would abstain
from doing so. He hoped that the Hon. Member for Kil-
kenny (Mr. Finn) would believe that he (Mr. T.) did not
wish to cast the imputations that he conceived were contained
in the petition. He was not responsible foi: the language
of the petition, although he concurred in the sentiments of
the petitioners as to what they conceived the measure contem-
plated by the Noble Lord, when they termed it a measure of
spoliation of the property of the Irish Church.
Mr. 0' C 0 NNE L L said he had no objection to the recep-
tion of the petition from South Lancashire, although it. con-
tained expressions that were disrespectfully violent, exceedingly
calumniating, and utterly false. It had all these qualities ,of
violence, calumny, and falsehood to make it parliamentary.
(Laughter and cheers.) It was full of that ribaldry that is in
so much requisition abroad to vilify some Members of Parlia-
ment, especially one for whom he had a great •affection.—
( Laughter.) He was willing to treat it with, the com-
passion of his c.nntempt. It was full of I- 41d taste—it
lied most outrageously—and he was perfectly., willing that