The Sun.
London, England, 1835-07-24 00:00:00

Noble 'Lord opposite to make out a whole case, and
rest upon half a case. Let them prove to him that- those
grounds which originally subsisted did still subsist.—(Minis-
terial cheers.) He would contend that a state of things
had arisen in Ireland which could not be healed without
trenching upon the property of the Church.—(llear, hear.)
It was the inalienable right of the Legislature to effect a set-
tlement by an interference with that property, if the peace of
Ireland _could not be attained without it; and in attempting to
effect that settlement, the Legislature was bound to attend to the
, interests, not merely of the clergy, but of the community at large.
The Right lion. Baronet had also argued that the whole
Le of landed property in Ireland was vested in the Protes-
tants, and that as the provisions of the Church came out of
the property of the owners of the soil, and not from the occu-
piers, it was the most ufijust thing in the world for the Ca-
tholic community to complain of it. Now, if the Establish-
ment was in fact supported by the property of the Protestants,
then he would say, let the Poestestants take upon themselves
the whole charge of the Church, and that would settle the
question at once. They then might make what provisions
they thought necessary for their own wants. Ile saould be
perfectly willing to make that bargain with them. It would
most certainly be a much better mode of settling the ques-
tion than the mode proposed by the Right lion. Baronet (Sir
James Graham) who wished the House to adopt the old sys-
tem of building Churches and glebe-houses—of sending out
persons to convert Roman Catholics to Protestantism—and all
the other means that had been formerly taken to uphold the
Established Church in Ireland. But why, he would ask, go
back to this obiolete system ?—( Cheers.) Did not the Right
lion. Baronet know that it had cost this country no less than
1,400,0001. from the tirac of the Union up to the year 1825, to
carry on that system, when the grants were suspended in con-
sequence of the recommendations contained in a Report made
to the House of Commons on the subject, which pointed out
its inefficiency? This expenditure, too, in support of that
system, was going on at a time when every. other country
was outstripping us in the great work of national education.
Let them look at the case of Prussia, where they might see
in practice the very principle, to the support of which the
Government of this country were desirous of devoting any
siirrius of the tithe fund which might be found to subsist
after pros isturg, for the legitimate wants of tLe Protestants
in Ireland. In Prussia there was a population of 12,000,000,
of which 7,000,000 were Protestants. Its that country there
were no less than 1,664,218 children actually receiving edu-
cation in the Government schools from the general funds of
the nation. " The masters and inspectors (said the law)
must most carefully avoid every kind of constraint, or inter-
ference with the children on account of their particular creed."
Protestants and Catholics were received in the same schools,
and even Jews were allowed to send their children to those
schools ' • and private religious instruction was to be given to
the children as their parents might desire. They were merely
instructed in those principles in which all Christians of all
sects could concur. So great was the care not to impede
the progress of instruction in any way, that it was stated
that no particular books or mode of tuition were prescribed,
in order to impose no shackles upon the constant onward
course of improvement. This was the very system which
the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley), so much to his
own honour, had introduced into Ireland, and which he (Mr.
W.) believed was working very well there. He wished to
see that system coniieued, in order that all those religious
animosities, which a f.'nntrary system was calculated to cherish,
might be entirely done ii,ay---40-reerrii) tie now ap-
proached the last part of the subject :.'..1 which he was desirous
of addressing the House. He had made ;Yue general ob-
servations on the provisions of this Bill ; and had also taken a
brief notice of some of the arguments advanced by the Right
Hon. Baronet, the Member for. Cumberland. He had now
only to allude to the mode in which the Right Hon. Baronet,
the Member for Tamworth, proposed to deal with the Bill,
by dividing it into two separate Bills, and to give to each of
those measures a separate consideration, so that the House
might pass them separately into a law if they felt it right to
do so, or else to reject one of them and adopt the other. He
readily admitted the admirable skill with which the Right
Hon. Baronet left out of sight all the real objections that could
be urged against his proposition. He admitted the power with
which the Right Hon. Baronet had laid before them those
visions of peace and conciliation to arise from the adoption of
his proposition, which nobody better knew than himself could
never be realized. He (Mr. Ward) looked at the question in
this point of view—the LegislatUre had to deal in Ireland with
an evil of long existence, and most grievous in its operation.
No half measures could remove that evil—no palliatives would
be of the slightest avail..—( Ministerial cheers.) They must
probe the wound to the bottom—(cheers)—if they hoped to
operate a cure. But this a mere commutation never could
do. A commutation, without a change in the distribution of
the Revenues of the Irish Chorch, was worse than use7ess. It
was a cruel mockery, carried to a cruel excess.—(Loud
Cheers.) . How could the Right Hon. Baronet exiect to re-
concile a commutation alone to the 895 paaishes which were
without 50 resident Protestants, or to the 496 parishes which
were without 20 Protestants, or to the 150 parishes which were
without any Protestants or any Protestant Church at all?
What would it matter to the people of those places, as to the
shape or mode in which the money was paid, provided they
were compelled to pay it in some shape, without receiving any
spiritual instruction for it whatsoever ?—( Cheers.) Upon
what plea, or upon what ground, he would ask, was the House
to stultify itself by rescinding its former resolution—a reso-
lution come to a very short time ago—which stated, " that
it was the opinion of this House that no measure on the sub-:
ject of tithes in Ireland could lead to a satisfactory and
final adjustment, which did not embody the principle con-
tained in the foregoing resolution"—that resolution being
the resolution moved by the Noble Friend the Secretary
for the Home Department, which expressly stated that any
surplus of the Church revenues in Ireland, not required for the
spiritual care of P ambers, should be applied to the moral
and religious educ. •of all ,classes of the people, without
distinction of religious persuasion. ' He need not remind the
House that that Resolution terminated a most severe and me-
morable struggle within those walls. It was that Resolution
which drove the Right Hon. Baronet from the lead of the
Government ; it was that Resolution which constituted the
vital and essential distinction between the Melbourne Cabinet
and the Cabinet over which that Right Hon. Baronet pre-
sided. Why, then, were they to rescind it.—(Great cheering
from the 'Ministerial benches.) Why were they to throw them-
selves open to so gross a charge of inconsistency—( Cheers)—
and to proclaim to the world that a struggle, which had con-
vulsed this country from one end of it to the other, and which
might soon possibly convulse it again,- was a mere struggle for
party purposes ? ( Cheers from the Opposition, echoed back
by tremendous cheers from the Ministerial benches.) What !
party purposes? If ever there was a struggle in this or any
other country for a great and vital principle, that was the strug-
gle. But, at all events, the Noble Lord who so loudly cheered
( Lord Stanley) was the very last person in the world who
ought to dispute that point.--( Loud cheering.) Upon what
principle, he would ask, did the Noble Lord retire from Earl
Grey's Government ?—( Cheers.) It was that principle which,
unassisted, alone. and by its own intrinsic and irresistible force
had broken up two Administrations already, and would most
assuredly break up two more if the attempt here or elsewhere
to defeat this Bill should be successful. If those who now
resisted that principle, whether in this House or in the House
of Lords, should succeed, and upon the strength of that suc-
cess again attain power, he would tell them that they would
not—could not—hold that power for three short months.—
( Loud cheering. )They might appeal to the people—( Cheers)
—he feared it not.—( Renewed cheers.) The people of Eng-
land were unquestionably in favour of the principle involved in
the resolution of this House, and of those legitimate changes
which his Majesty's Government were desirous to effect in the
Establishment of the Irish Church.—( Cheers.) They were
tired of these endless discussions—(Cheers)—and anxiously
wished that this matter were fairly and finally settled.—
Ile believed that the adoption of this Bill afforded the only
chance of effecting that settlement. Let them look at the
position in which the House would place itself, it' they re-
scinded this resolution. This point was adverted to by the
Right lion. Baronet the Member for Cumberland last night ;
but he, as being a late member of the Government, was pro-
bably under some restraint; but he (Mr. Ward) could address
himself to the subject as an independent member, and he would
say that if they receded from the principle of this resolution,
they would stultify themselves, and put the argument into
their enemies hands, and give up all hopes of ever settling
this great question. As the rights of the Legislature on this
question now stood, the consent of the House- of Commons
was necessary to any settlement of it, because there was a mil-
lion- of money involved ; which had been partly, and which
was still partly to he granted to the Clergy of Ireland. Sup-
pose this House should at once consent to that grant. and
the other branch of the Legislature should then so alter this
Bill as to enable the Irish Clergy to hold their livings in the
mariner they now held them, did the House believe that they
should ever have any change in the appropriation of the Irish
Church revenue ? They knew what was the feeling en-
tertained upon this subject from the Noble Lord opposite
( Lora Stanley,) and by, he might say, an innumerable
body of the Lords who were members of the other House of
Parliament. They advocated their own principles, and so did
we. Why should this House concede to them ?—( Cheers. )
We, the Commons of England, consent to a compromise—
to a sacrifice of this million—upon certain terms, and upon a
certain understanding; and that understanding is, that that
million shall purchase a final and a fair settlement of this
question. But the Right Honourable Baronet opposite pro-
poses that we shall make the sacrifice without obtaining the
result—to pay for the cure, and yet perpetuate the disease?
He proposes that we should, by our own hands, end by our
own act snd deed, furnish the only means by which the ex
istirg system can possibly be bolstered up. To that propo-
sition, I, for one, will not consent. It would be unwise,
undignified,. dishonourable, for the House of Commons to do
so. I say dishonourable—because the House is pledged to
apply a remedy to the existing evils. Indeed it is doubly
pledged to it, pledged, indirectly, on the motion of the Hon.
and Learned Member for Dublin upon the repeal of the
Union—and pledged by the more recent resolution which dis-
tinctly bears upon this question. If we give up the point res-
pecting the million advanced to the Irish clergy, without ob-
taining a settlement of this question, a settlement of it never
can be obtained.
,Were we afterwards to send up a Bill to the
House of Lords on the subject of appropriation, it would be no
sooner sent up than scorned. I ask, then, is it wise, is it pru-
dent, is it safe (setting aside all other considerations involved
in this question) to permit the existence of a constant source
of irritation, and of difference between the two branches of
the Legislature ? Is it safe to trust to time, to circumstance,
to chance, the aettlement of a question which is now in our
hands and in our power ?—( Cheers.) You tell me that, by
insisting on sending up this Bill to the House of Lords, we
shall ruts the risk of a collision. lam no friend to a cal.
sion ; lam no friend to agitation. I wish sincerely to see the
great and best interests of this country promoted by the settle-
ment of this great question.—(Cheers.) I wish to see some-
thing like StebiPty in the Government of this country ; but I