The Sun.
London, England, 1835-04-08 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 8, 1835.

confidence.—( Hear.) But let me warn the Noble Lord, that
if he goes on, he must be prepared to see the principle of this
resolution carried into effect by others with whom I cannot

think he wishes to coincide. Let me caution him, as an emi-
nent writer has said of an illustrious statesman (Lord Chat-
ham)
that whilst he only intended to hamper a minister, he
lost us America ;—let me caution the Noble Lord, I say,
that history, to which he has alluded, do not say of him,
that while he only intended to hamper a Minister, he de-
stroyed a Church, and dismembered an empire.—( Cheers.)
Mr. PERRIN valued the principle of this resolution, not
only because it was calculated to give peace to Ireland, but
because it would tend to give increased and just efficiency to
the Established Church. He was surprised, therefore, at the
opposition which had been given to the resolution by some
Hon. Gentlemen opposite. It was said by the Right Hon.
Secretary for Ireland, that after all the deductions to which
the income of the Church would be subject, it would be re-
duced from 700,0001. to 450,0001. Now, he was ready to
allow a deduction of 25 per cent., and a deduction on account
of the vestry cess ; but that would still leave 130,0001. surplus
over 450,0001., and was that a trifle to devote to moral and
religious education ? The Hon. and Learned Member for the
University of Dublin had said no addition was wanted to the
funds at present devoted to purposes of education, for that
the Board of Education had such an abundance of funds as
to be obliged to raise the salaries of some of the masters.
Now he (Mr. Perrin) had been in communication with that
Board, and he could say, from his own knowledge, that it was
miserably short of funds.--( Cheers from the Reformers.) As
to the reduction of ten per cent. from the value of Church pro-
perty, by a waste to that amount that would be occasioned by
its conversion, he could only say that he was not disposed to
agree to the Bill which would occasion that waste. He could
as little allow of the deduction of 59,000/., on account of the
suppressed Bishoprics, as of 22,0001. on account of the
tax on the incomes of the clergy, for these two sums did
not cease to exist.--( Cheers.) They were still applicable to
ecclesiastical purposes.—( Hear.) But besides that, they must
not forget the state of many parishes in Ireland. He would
bring the state of a few before the House. They would not
be extreme cases, such as those brought forward by the Right
Hon. Member for Cambridge, who named parishes in
which there were no Protestants ; not cases from the diocese
of Ossory, but cases occurring in the Protestant county of
Monaghan, in the north of Ireland. In that county, on the
borders of Armagh, there was a barony called Farney, con-
taining five parishes, the condition of which he would state to
the House. The first was the parish of Magheracloon, in
which there were 41 Protestant families, and 1,400 Catholic

families. The value of the living was 4301. in tithes ; besides
which there was a glebe-house, with 42 acres of land, making
the total value 556/. The incumbent resided at Bath. The
second was the parish of Carrickmacross, in which there 80
Protestant families, 10 Dissenting families, and 1,400 Catholic
families. The value of the living was 700/. in tithes under,
composition, and with glebe-house, and one hundred and
forty acres of land, 1,1201. The third was the parish of
Donaglimoine, in which there were fifty Protestant fami-
lies, and 2,000 Catholic families. The value of the liv-
ing was 1,0501. in tithes, or with glebe-house and sixty
acres of land, 1,2301. The fourth was the parish of Killannej ,
in which there were four Protestant families and 1,000 Ca-
tholic families. The value of the living was 500/. in tithes,
and with glebe-house and eighty acres of land, 7501. The
fifth parish was Enniskeen, in which there were ten Protestant
families and 1,000 Catholic families. The value of the living
was also 5001. in tithes, and also with glebe-houses and eighty
acres of land, 7501. In all these cases the incumbents were
non-resident, and the duty 'was performed by curates, much to
the satisfaction of the Protestant inhabitants, some of them at
751. per annum.—( Cheers.) These were not extreme cases.
but such as might be outmatched in all the southern, western,
and eastern counties.—( Hear, hear.) Was this state of things
to continue ?—( Hear, hear.) Could any friend of the Church
wish it to continue ?—( Hear, hear.) Could any friend of
religion wish it to continue ?—( Hear.) Could the Noble
Lor (Egerton) opposite expect to controvert these facts
by talking of popular clamours ?—( Cries of Hear, hear. )
He ( Mr. Perrin) might be asked, " Will you suppress the
Established Church? Will you transfer its property to the
Catholic Church?" He would do no such thing. He would
take the case of the last parish to which he had alluded, where,
as he had stated, there were 1,000 Catholic families, and only
four Protestant families. " What 1" he might be asked,
" though the number of the Protestant families be small, will
you not respect their feelings and scruples ?" As a Protestant
himself he valued the Protestant Establishment : but for the
support of that Establishment was it necessary that in a parish
where there were but four Protestant families, 750/. a year
should be taken out of the parochial funds for the maintenance
of a Protestant clergyman ?—( Cheers.) He cared not for
the argument of whether it were bad for the tenant or bad
for the landiord—to one or the other it must be bad—to
the parish at large it was of no benefit ; and he for one
never would consent to this state of things, that whilst
750/. a year were abstracted to meet the claims of the
Church, the whole of the religious duties should be performed
by a person receiving only 751. a year, and that the remaining
675/. a year, should go to he dissipated by an individual re-
siding at Bath or elsewhere.—(Loud cheers.) He (Mr.
Pcrrin) said that was not religion.—(Cheers.) He said that
that was not good sense. He said that it was not honesty.—
(Reiterated cheers.) He begged pardon of the House for
trespassing at so much length upon its time ; but he wished to
represent to Englishmen the real state of things in Ireland :
knon lug that if that state of things were fully known to the
English Members of the House they would act with as anxious
a desire to etf.xt what was right and useful to the community,
as the most warm and passionate Irishman ( Hear, hear.)
He begged to recal the attention of the House, for a moment,
to the particular parish to which he had referred. In that pa-
rish, for the accommodation of four Protestant families, there
was a lane, well-built, well-furnished, well-aired church ; a
curate performed the service. Contrast that with the ac-
commodation afforded to the Roman Catholics. There
were a thousand Roman Catholic families in the parish. Ig-
norant and superstitious as those persons might be, was that a
valid reason why they should not be taken care of?—why they
should not be adequately furnished with the means of religious
education ? Look at their situation, and look at their chapel
—generally ill built, never furnished, no pews, no seat, no
bench—a plain damp floor—and, even such as it was, not of
sufficient size to contain half the congregation.—( Clicers.)
He appealed to his friends and countrymen on the other side
of the House to bear him out in this fact—to answer him this
question. On riding by a Catholic chapel on Sunday, had
they not frequently seen a great portion of the congregation
kneeling on the outside, because there was no room for them
within. Was that a state of things to continue ? Was that
a state of things calculated, in any way, to conduce to religion,
to peace, or to tranquillity? When such a state of things
existed, could any man wonder at the animosities, the ex-
asi,erations, the dissentions, and the heartburnings, that had
produced so many evil consequences in Ireland.—( Hear,
hear, hear.) 111.:5.e were facts—indisputable facts. Was
it possible that they should he allowed to continue? He
would not withdraw the income of the Protestant clergyman
in Ireland. So far from it—so far from diminishing the
means of the working clergyman, he would place him in a
situation more becoming his avocation. He would make him
more independent. He would give to the Protestant minister
who had to take care of the four, or the twenty, or the fifty
Protestant families in any parish, 2001. a year instead of 75/. a
year.—( Hear, hear.) In a parish such as that to which he
had referred, where the tithes amounted to 7501. a year, it
was admitted even by the Hon. Gentlemen on the opposite
side of the House, that 2501. a year would be a fit and proper
sum to allow to the Protestant clergyman. Taking these
Honourable Gentlemen upon their own admission—agree-
ing with them that 2501. a year would be a fit and proper
sum to allow to the clergyman, then, he asked, what
was to be done with the remaining 500/. ?—( Hear, hear. )
He (Mr. Perrin) would devote it to the moral and reli-
gious education of the poor of the parish..—( Hear, hear. )
But it was said that that would be robbing the Church.—
( Laughter and cheers.) The Hon. and Learned Member for
the University of Dublin had stated that this was not the pro-
perty of the State, and that the State had no right to inter-
fere with it. He (Mr. Perrin) said that it was the property
of the State ; ibut whether it were the property of the State
or not, he contended that the State had a right, and was bound
to interfere, to see that it was usefully and properly appro-
priated. He contended that the property now claimed and
possessed by the Church in each parish, was property held in
trust for the use and benefit of the parishioners at large, and
that to the use and benefit of the parishioners at large it
' ought now to be appropriated.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Those
were the terms of the statute-book. By the 15th Richard 11.
it was provided Because divers damages and hin-
drances oftentimes have happened, and daily do happen, to
the poor parishioners of divers places by the appropriation
of benefices of the same places, it is agreed and assented,
that in every licence from henceforth to be made of the
appropriation of any parish church, the diocesan of such
place shall ordain, according to the value of such church, a
convenient sum of money to be paid out of the fruits and pro-
fits of the same church, and distributed yearly to the poor
parishioners in aid of their living and sustenance for ever"—
( Cheers.) But it was said that an appropriation of 300 years
had given to the Established Church a prescriptive right. That
argument was completely defeated by another statute. By
the 4th Henry IV., it was provided, " and from henceforth in
every Church so appropriated, or to be appropriated, a secular
person to be appointed to do divine service, to keep hospitality,
and instruct the people."—( Cheers.) Such was the proper
and legal application of the Church funds ; and those who con-
tended that they could not be applied to the promotion of
moral and religious education amongst the people, after the
wants of the Church had been sufficiently provided for, grossly
misunderstood the purposes for which they were originally de-
signed.--( Hear, hear.) Supposing that Ireland were a new
plantation—supposing that it were now occupied for the first
time,would the Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite begin by giving
a clergyman 750/. a year for attending to the spiritual wants of
four families.—(Hear)? Such a system would not be to-
lerated in a new settlement. It was not the more defensible
because it had existed for a number of years ; and he asked the
Right Hon. Gentleman whom he saw opposite, " Will you
persevere in it when you see it gives rise to such scenes as
Carricshock and Rathcormac ?—( Hear, hear.) If you persist
in it, call it policy, call it wisdom, call it expediency, call it
what you will, but do not desecrate the sacred word con-
science,' say not 'tis done for conscience' sake."—( Cheers. )
He did not suppose that the measure proposed by the Noble
Lord (John Russell) would be productive of all the great ad-
vantages that had been ascribed to it. No one measure would
tranquillize Ireland—the present measure would not alone be
sufficient to tranquillize Ireland, but it would certainly go a
great way towards the mitigation of the spirit of exasperation
which now unhappily prevailed. —( Hear.) Some Hon. Gen-
tlemen had spoken of the Noble Lord's proposition as if it
were an insult to Preetestants. He was sure the Hon. Mem-
ber for Monaghan would not say that. The Hon. Member
said it would lie wise to extend education to the Presbyterians.