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

TliE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, APRIL 2, 1835.

' should not presume in language of his own to show the
House the great purposes of religion and of charity to which
the Church revenues should be applied, but he would, with the
permission of the House, read an extract from a work couched
in language much more eloquent than any he could use, and
more fitting to be addressed to an enlightened assembly, such as
he then had the honour to address. He hoped the House
would bear with him wii:!? he read an extract from a work of
Doctor Doyle, as to the effect cr Poor Lbws in that country.
That Learned Divine said " You complain of Rack Rents and
of Tithes—of want of employment and of the ejection
of poor tenants from their farms--there is but one de-
cisive remedy, and that was a legal provision for the
poor. Let every one, therefore, who wishes to see the
competition for land cease, and that the poor should obtain
employment—let every one who desired to see the widow
clothed, the orphan fed, and the stranger taken in—let who-
ever is anxious that the laws of nature should not be set at
nought, and that the laws of grace-should be fulfilled—let him
petition Parliament for a legal provision for the poor." To
words so eloquent, it would be unnecessary for him to add—any
language of his would weaken that effect. He should not de-
tain the House, except to explain that if the motion of the
Noble Lord was carried, to move in committee that
the words general education should be left out in order to
add " for the relief of the poor as Parliament should deem
fit."

Here there was a moment's pause, when
Mr. RICHARDS resumed—He had spoken so much on
the one side and the other, that he had been reminded by an
Hon. Member beside him, that, he had, not stated on which
side he should vote.—(Laughter, and cries of " Hear, hear.")
He begged now to say that seeing nothing but mischief to
Ireland in the proposition of the Noble Lord—(Loud cheers
from the Ministerial benches)—feeling that all the united
wisdom of the party with which the Noble Lord was joined,
after weeks and months of deliberation, had merely ended in
proposing a measure which would be inimical to the Protest-
ant religion, and which would give rise to party dissensions,
and eventually lead to civil war--( Laughter, and cries of—
hear)—when he recollected all this, he felt that he 'should
not be doing his duty to the people of Ireland and the coun-
try, if he did not join heart and hand in deprecating the mo-
tion of the Noble Lord.—(Cries of " Oh l and hear, hear.")
Mr. Serjeant WILDE assured the House that he had so
great a respect for it, that if he now trespassed upon its atten-
tion, he would make the best return he could by confining
himself simply and plainly to what appeared to be the merits
of the question now under consideration. The importance
of that question had been admitted, and could not be denied
by any individual who had addressed the Chair, and it had
been said that that question would go forth to the British pub-
lic, and that it had even been insinuated that that public would
take a very different view of it from that which he confidently
anticipated would be entertained by the majority of that House.
As the present position of the question did not appear to be in
his opinion a correct one, he felt anxious to state his views of
it, believing that a great misconception had gone abroad
upon the subject. Notwithstanding the statements that
had been made of the great importance of the question,
some pains had been taken to embarrass and misrepresent it.
—( Loud cries of " Hear, bear.") He knew nothing of the
the objects and views of the Noble Lord who had brought the
question under the consideration of the House, further than as
he had learnt them from the statement of the Noble Lord.
When it was said that the question before the House was un-
fairly brought on, in order to try in an underhand way, whether
that House had any confidence in Ministers or not, he must say
that he was obliged to dissent. He trusted that the vote
of that night would Ise given with reference to that question,
under all the circumstances in which they were placed.—
( Cheers.) He considered that it was a question very fairly
presented to the House for the purpose of trying that question.
The Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had repeatedly stated
that he was anxious that that question should be put to the
House at once and fairly—(cheers)—and he (Serjeant Wilde)
was convinced of his sincerity, beceuse it really appeared as if
the Right Hon. Baronet was now in office for the purpose of
showing under how much opposition it was possible for a man
to remain.—( Laughter.) But as he ( Serjeant Wilde) did
not think that the Right Hon. Baronet ought to be possessed
of the confidence of the House, then, in his opinion, the ques-
tion was now most fairly and properly brought on, in order that
the sense of the House might be taken. The talents and
ability of the Right Hon. Baronet were well known to the
country; and that House knew that no talent belonging to
him was so great as that of facility in debate, and if such mo-
tion were mae, if they put it at once as confidence, or no con-
fidence, he ( Sergeant Wilde) knew in what way the Hon.
Ba-onet would have made use of that argument, and at once
had toil them in many shapes there was nothing before the
House to justify it to come to such a vote. The Right
Hon. Baronet, he was aware, took the Government upon his
shoulders—under peculiar circumstances. He believed that
personal ambition had, nothing to do with it7--clid. not in-
fluence him in taking office, but that he had done so from
a sense of public duty—(Cheers from the Opposition)—and
he (Sergeant Wilde) trusted that the 'same sense of public
duty would induce him to retire from office, after that House
had given an unequivocal vote as to whether they bad con-
fidence in his Majesty's Ministers or not. The Right Hon.
Baronet had said, soon after entering into power, said in a
public manner that lie did not understand what was meant by
" the principles of the Reform Bill." In his (Sergeant
W.'s) opinion no man was capable in these days of carrying
on the Government of this country who avowed such igno-
rance. The Right Hon. Baronet had asked what these prin-
ciples were. He ( Sergeant W.) was not aware whether that
question had ever been answered or not, but he had not the
slightest hesitation in stating that his opinion was, that the
principles of that Bill were to bring the public institutions of the
country under the controul of a Legislature freely elected, in or-
der that they should be reviewed ; when they did not answer the
purposes for which they were instituted, they should be modified
in such a manner as to suit the altered circumstances and
tastes of the country.—( Cheer;.) These in his opinion were
the principles of the Reform Bill. He owned that he enter-
tained some doubt of the principles upon which the Right
Hon. Baronet intended to carry on his Government at first,
but that doubt was dissipated when Parliament met, and heob-
served the party by whom he was supported—( Herz, hear)—
when he perceived that the Right Hon. Baronet ranked amongst
his supporters those gentlemen who denied the existence of
any one of those abuses, either in Parliamentary representa-
tion, or any other department of the Constitution of which the
country had so long complained, and which it was so recently
proposed to remedy. It was true enough that the Right Hon.
Baronet might be a Reformer, for every one was a Reformer
now-a-days. —( Cheers.) But the question was what is the
mode of estimating an abuse, for the ambiguity lay not in whe-
ther a man was a reformer or not, but in his discovering and
estimating what was really an abuse ?—( Hear, hear.) When,
then, he observed the respectable and Hon. Gentlemen by
whom the Right Hon. Baronet was supported, and called to
mind their estimate of some of the most important institu-
tions of the country, he made up his mind that it was quite
impossible for the Right Hon. Baronet, even if he carried on
the Government by the strength of that party, to carry into
effect those useful and efficient reforrris that were required.—
(Cheers.) When the Right Hon. Baronet stated that one of
the reasons why he should receive the confidence of the
House was, that be possessed facilities for carrying measures in
the House of Lords--and he begged to be understood that he
was not one of those to whom the Right Hon. Baronet re-
ferred, when he said there were some persons anxious to see a
collision between this House and the House of Lords—no, he
deprecated such an event, and also the doctrine of " measures
not men—"
Mr. CHARLTON here rose from the Ministerial side, and
said he wanted to speak to order. The Honourable Gen-
tleman had stated to the House that this was not a
question as to the Irish Church, but it was also as to
the competency of Ministers. Now he (Mr. C.) humbly pre-
sumed that it was no such thing; and he appealed to the
Speaker to set the Hon. and Learned Gentleman right.—
(Cries of " Order" proceeded from all parts of the House,
which compelled the Hon. Gentleman to sit down.)
As soon as silence was restored, the SPEAKER called out—
" Mr. Sergeant Wilde."—(Loud cheering.)
Mr. Sergeant WILDE resumed—He should not turn
aside at the present moment to answer the Hon. Gentleman
opposite, but pursue the argument he had commenced. He
had noticed Ministers' recommendation to the House, and he
was about to observe, that it appeared to him to be something
like dictation to the House of Commons by the House of Lords.
And if an individual possess the confidence of the House of
Commons that was no matter, unless he also possessed the
confidence of the House of Lords. This did not appear to
him to be a Constitutierael doctrine, or one calculated to re-
commend Hon. Gentlemen opposite to the House of Com-
mons.—( Hear, hear, hear.) When, therefore, Parliament
impor-
tance to
partyk nowbwyhawthom were
they the
met under these circumstances, it became of extreme impor-
ptohreG,osraenrdemwehnatt,
wasand
o
were supported, of
tedsup
their scale of estimating abuses. Did they consider that
the Test and Corporation Act was no abuse--that the dis-
abilities of the Catholics were no abuse—(Cheers)—that the
existence of slavery was no abuse—( Renewed cheering)—and
that the state of Parliamentary representation was no abuse?
—(Tremendous cheering.) What was the use of their telling
us that they are Reformers. We are not the better for it—the
country was not the safer--(Loud cheers)—if the power of
perception and the mode of estimating abuses which they pos-
sess did not enable them to see abuses in such things ? In this
state of things he rejoiced that the Noble Lord brought for-
ward this question, for it enabled them to ask Right Ho-
nourable Gentlemen on the other side did they con-
sider a sinecure Church an abuse?—(Tremendous cheering.)
Did the principles on which they were prepared to carry on
the Government--did their reforming principles induce them to
estimate the present state of the Irish Church with its exces-
sive revenues and limited duties—such an abuse as required
amendment—if not, their principles of reform, were not such as
entitled them to confidence.—( Great cheering.) He begged
pardon of the Hon. Member (Charlton) for not sooner reply-
ing to his observation. He (Sergeant Wilde) had never stated
this was not a question relating to the Irish Church ; he had only
said that it necessarily involved to a considerable extent the
question of confidence or no confidence in Ministers. If the
present Government did not consider the state of the Irish
Church an abuse, he had no hope that they would be satisfied
that any abuses existed. With that view he considered the
question most proper in point of time and form.---( Cheers. )
The Noble Lord had been charged with inconsistency in.
bringing forward this motion. It seemed to him that the
charge against the Noble Lord was without the slightest foun-
dation. He would not presume to be the defender of the Noble
Lord, nor venture to take such a liberty ; but, from all the
information he possessed, he would venture to assert that the
charge was utterly without foundation. The late Government
had declared that they were prepared to act upon the prin-
ciple incorporated in the present motion. The country re-
quired no pledge from them.—( Loud cheers.) They had
issued a Commission, and had stated that the issuing of that
Commission they considered as a recognition of the prin.

ciples now sought to be established.—( Cries of " Hear.")
But when that Government had retired, and a new Govern-
ment was formed which utterly repudiated any such principle
as proceeding to legislate on the ecclesiastical affairs of Ire-
land, in such a state of circumstances, he would ask was there
no difference between presenting their motion to the House
with a Government pledged to act on the principles they bad
embarked with, and that all its legislative as well as
executive measures would be directed to the applica-
tion of that principle—(Hear, hear)—and a Government
who repudiated it ? A Government who repudiated it would
act the reverse ; all its Legislative measures, all its executive
measures, would be directed to a totally different course.
It had bwome, therefore, important with this Tithe Bill in
the House—it had become, therefore, important with this Go -
vernt- to know, first of all, whether the state of the Irish
Church was an abuse or not--whether they were prepared,
as it had been understood the Government wished it to be
believed, they were prepared to look into the institutions of
the country with a view to their practical utility, and with a
view to the application of their funds to that practical utility, or
whether they were to be totally neglected? It being important
to ascertain the views of Ministers on that, the motion of the
Noble Lord became perfectly expedient and proper. But much
as they were interested on that side of the House in all that
could lead to the advancement of the honour and the stability
of the consistency of the Noble Lord, the House of Commons
would decide the merits of the present motion in its effects,
and as it regarded the interests of the country.--( Hear, hear.)
He begged to say that in rising to address the House, he had
risen as a zealous Protestant. He addressed it as one firmly
convinced of the necessity and advantage of a public Esta-
blishment, ready and determined to support any Government
to the full extent of his most humble power in the support
and maintenance of that Establishment.--( Hear, hear.) He
would not be a party to give away its profits or its emoluments
in any way, and in what he offered to the House, he called
upon it, as a Protestant and a friend of Protestantism, to fur-
ther Protestantism and not to further Catholicism.—( Hear.)
He called upon the House, believing his duty, and the duty of
every Protestant would incline him, to support most heartily
this resolution. He could very well conceive a Catholic
objecting to a proposition of this kind, but he could not give
credit for statesman-like reasons to a Protestont who would
object to it.—( Hear, hear.) He could assure the House
he had paid the most profound attention to what passed
in the course of the debate—he listened with great attention
to the speech of his Hon. and Learned Friend the Solicitor-
General, from whom he knew he could have whatever lights
upon the subject that great talents and diligence could supply.
He heard that Learned Gentleman say, that the present pro-
perty of the Established Church was originally Catholic pro-
perty ; but he never said that it was inviolable. He (Mr. W.)
defied him or any other Hon. and Learned Gentleman to
state, with any regard to his character, that Church property
was inviolable.—( Hear, hear.) There was no colour for such
a doctrine in English law. Much time would be saved to
the House, if they on his (Mr. W.'s) side of the House had
none to contend, with but the Right Honourable Baronet
( Sir J. Graham). He advocated no such absurd notion as that
Church property was inviolable ; but, on the contrary, he ex-
pressed himself in favour of an equitable transfer of the reve-
nues of the Church, never doubting the power of the legisla-
ture to dispose of it, as, appeared most admissible. What, ar-
gued the Right Hon. Gentleman, can you make by passing a
resolution recognising again and again that Parliament has the
power to regulate Church property ? He (Mr. W) would
refer to history on the subject, and with confidence would as-
sert that at various times, Parliament had applied the surplus
revenues of the Church to other than ecclesiastical purposes.
At various times, after Henry the Bth had suppressed the mo-
nastaries, he granted the revenues to lay impropriators, and to
the ecclesiastical establishment. One statute was enacted by
Parliament imposing 10 per cent., another imposed 20 per
cent., on the Church revenues for State purposes. Pray, he
would beg to ask, what became of the title of lay impro-
priators--if it was not in the power of the Legislature to im-
pose taxes upon it. Parliament, supposing that the ecclesias-
tical establishment possessed excessive and undue wealth,
took possession of the monasteries. This property was granted
to individuals, and here he could not help expressing his sur-
prise at one remark made by the Hon. and Learned Solicitor-
General. The property, he said, belongs to the Church
Establishment, whether as a gift of individuals, or a grant
from the Crown; and he adds, that it was not transferred from
the Catholics to the Protestants, but that the religion of
the country had changed, and instead of the property
leaving the Catholics, he contends that it was only the Catho-
lics left the property.—(Laughter and cheers.) That pro-
perty, which zeal for a religion that excites as much as any
other to acts of beneficence and piety, was all intended, as the
Learned Solicitor-General argues, for the established religion
of the country for the time being, as if a particular religion had
no place in the bosoms of the men from whom the property
was taken. Many Members of that House were zealously devoted
to the Protestant Establishment; he thought if they compared the
acts of beneficence which took place in former times, whether the
Established Religion were Catholic, and not Protestant, with
those of the present, they would not have much to be proud of,
or to say in its favour. What was the Establishment in Ire-
land ? Originally it was devoted to the support of the Catho-
lic Religion ; afterwards it was appropriated to the support of
Protestantism by Parliament. Parliament had a perfect right
to make such appropriation, when the religion ceased to be
the religion of the State.--( Hear, hear.) n many instances
the property could not be applied as the donors intended.
What was then to be done ? It could not be returned to the
don Ors, because they were dead arid gone. Parliament there-
fore took possession of it, and applied it as public property for
the maintenance of religion ; it remained so now, and he
would be no party to withholding or shrinking from the pur-
poses to which it was now applied, till every want of the Pro-
testant Church was amply supplied. In a reformed Parliament,
however, could any party doubt that the Irish Church required
reformation, when its property increased and its religion de-
creased ? He would now look at the subject in the way it had
been considered by the Right Hon. Bart. the Member for Cum-
berland ; he would consider it as trust property, and doing so
he would ask whether they Isere not grossly abusing that trust?
--(Cheers.) The present motion called upon the House pro-
perly to execute that trust--( Cheers)—and he trusted, there-
fore, the House would adopt it. A great mistake appeared
to have been made by all who had taken part in the present
discussion. For whom was the Church Establishment pro-
vided—for the Minister or the congregation ?—( Cheers.)
The question appeared to him to have been argued, as if the
Church Establishment had been erected merely for the pur-
pose of supporting so many clergymen.—( Hear.) What had
Dr. Palsy said upon the subject ? Why, that the Church
Establishment was no part of Christianity, but only the means
of inculcating it.—( Cheers.) That the funds of the Church
should be applied in the most beneficial manner to the country,
must be the natural conclusion of every rational mind. He
was surprised, on account of his unfeigned respect for the
judgment and abilities of the Noble Lord and the Right
Honourable Baronet opposite—he was surprised at his own
want of intelligence when he could not understand how they
could contemplate the present state of Ireland with so many
parishes without flocks, and yet consider that this was a faith-
ful discharge of the trust for which Church property had been
given. Were there, then, to be Ministers Without flocks, and
an establishment without a people ? But those who could
despise Schedule A in politics were contented with it in reli-
gion.—( Hear, hear.) If they reflected upon the wretched
paupers who they were told were misled, and open to improper
influence through their ignorance, surely it was time to
remedy such a state of things.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Looking,
therefore, to the destitution of the poor Catholics in
Ireland, he would ask the House not to deprive Protestants
of any means of propagating their religion, still less of de-
priving them of spiritual aid to their flocks. But he would ask
them to practice the principles of the religion they professed,
by applying the surplus of such property to purposes generally
beneficial to the community. The Right Hon. Baronet had
declared of himself that which he ( Sergeant W.) hoped every
Hon. Member could say of himself—that he was a religious
man. But he trusted that they would not be called
upon to make each such a declaration, for that was a
characteristic of a worse age than the present. He
knew that such sentiments had place in that House, but he
was well aware that it did not apply to the Right Hon. Baro-
net, whose sincerity and manliness of character were well
known. But he would now ask, bad the appropriation of the
revenues of the Church been so applied as to produce all the
benefit-of which they were capable ? If they had not, what
should be done ? It was stated they were not in a situation to
act, and they had heard arguments from various gentlemen
on the necesity of waiting for the report of the Commis-
sion.. He would wish to call the attention of the House
to the opinions urged in favour of this course, particularly to
those advanced by the Right Hon. Baronet on the issuing of
that Commission. He had declared that he objected to the
opening of that Commission, because all that could be required
toinontlioisf grtheaatt pgreriantcippilienwciapsleknthoweyn,
waenrdeof the practical
alrendyinpossienssstiiote-
n.
- oIV much time had been expended to show that they were not
,
in that situation. If the question were important then, it was
certainly more important now, when a different impression was
entertained in that country with respect to its ancient privileges.
Did they think it proper to keep the people in Ireland in abey-
ance ? He answered them it was destructive to keep them in
abeyance. Yet they were •in abeyance now, and was it he
would ask in a more fit or proper state to seep it in abeyance
now than it was then ? They had been urged to keep this
question back, as this was not the best time for its discussion.
The resolution proceeded also to observe that the question
was merely this, whether Parliament had the right, not the
abstract and legal right, for there could be no doubt about its
right in that sense—( Hear, hear,)—but whether Parliament
had really the right to appropriaae the Church propertty to
secular purposes ? That was the opinion of the Right Hon.
Baronet, then, and the House must be anxious to have this
subject decided. Let them settle this with the Right Hon.
Baronet whether, if he was correct in stating that there
was a power sufficient in the Government to enable it
to adjudicate on this question, there was not also now ?
One said the question was not ripe for discussion—another
maintained the contrary. He thought it was in a position for
the decision of that House. The public would notice, or at
least would suspect, that the question then stood on a ground,
not for partial but general enquiry. Let them look to the
state of the Irish Church. The Noble Lord, whose confidence
in opposing his views to the opinions of every one else in that I
House, no one could doubt had not fairly dealt with the argu-
ments in the speech of the Member for Cambridge. How did
he treat the arguments from that side of the House ? Why,
in no way. They presumed to say, and with the sanction of
the Right Hon. Baronet, that Parliament had the power of
dealing with Church property. What answer was given to
that argument? Now was tiros time to debate a principle
of so much importance, not limited to some paltry question.
He hoped the cause of reform was but begun.---( Hear, hear.)
He was glad that a question was brought forward, not of
trifling moment, but involving a mighty public principle—he
was happy that it related to the National Church, for if abuses

were found to exist in it, there was no place so fitting for re-
form to commence, as its purification would tend to draw to it
more closely the affections of the people. The Church of
Ireland necessarily presented itself. first to their view, and
while it was admitted on all sides that abuses existed therein,
it was not fit that they should be perplexed with figures
when they had facts before them. If they would take the
clergy who had no congregations, and those who had, it
might be that there would not be more than 3001. a year
for each. But if they took away those who had no duties
to perform, how much would it enable them to pay ? How
much, if they were paid according to the services performed ?
The facts before them were such as justified legislation on
the subject. Let the House recollect that the Protestant
Establishment was at this time as great as it was to support
the clergy, when the Catholic religion was the religion of the
State, and when that was followed by the statement, that as
it was the Legislature first conferred it, so it was now in their
power to take it away, he had no fear that the public would
be led astray or mistaken, but they would be convinced that
the measures proposed were intended for the support, not the
destruction of the Church itself. That was the object of
the resolution before them, and unless Hon. Gentlemen were
prepared to assent to the motion, it would not be difficult to
show the country who were and who were not sincere in their
professions of Reform. The revenues of the Irish Church had
not produced all the beneficial effects which had been antici-
pated—the cause of Protestantism had not advanced by the
plan that had been hitherto adopted, and the question was how
would they now apply the surplus revenues of the Church ?
They had no objection to provide that the Clergyman, whose
spiritual care was required, should have the means of perform-
ing his duties amply and efficiently, and of devoting a
portion to that charity which was the peculiar characteristic
of a Christian Minister—they were not the advoeetc,s for any
strict allowance to those clergymen who had spiritual duties to
perform ; but after these had been provided for, would the
British public be satisfied until they had ascertained the
amount of the surplus that remained ?—( Hear, hear.) The
Right Hon. the Member for Cambridge had last night proved
to them pretty clearly that the education of the people was a
distinct charge upon the Church ; and he had been answered
by the Noble Lord opposite, that such appropriation had been
the act of a conqueror. From whom, he ( Sergeant Wilde)
would ask, had the Church and its revenues been obtained ?
The principle was not thus to be got rid of in a sentence.
All they sought for was 'to apply the surplus revenues of
the Church to the education of the people, without inquiring
what their religion might be ; and they could not be answered
by saying that that was the act of- a conqueror. How had
the question been treated by the Right Rev. Prelates who had
been alluded to by the Noble Lord ? No, they had not con-
sidered that such a proceeding would be an act of spoliation—
they felt that the Church had failed in its duty to the people,
and had kept its revenues in its pocket, instead of applying
them to the education of the people. Was not this principle
recognized in various Acts of the Legislature ; and had not in
various instances grants of surplus Church property been made,
after the wants of the Church had been supplied 2—( Hear.)
What was the cause of the lamentable state in -which Ireland
at present was ? Did it not originate in the ignorance of the
lower orders, and the influence of interested individuals acting
upon that ignorance ?—( Hear.) What would give the advo-
cates of Frotestantism the greatest chance of proselytism ?
Instructing the people of Ireland.--(Hear.) Much misre-
presentation had been used with respect to the arguments of
Hon. Members on his ( Sergeant Wilde's) side of the House.
—(Cheers.) It was necessary to refer to the grievances
which had been inflicted upon Ireland to account for the posi-
tion in which she was at present placed. A church had been
imposed upon her, to the doctrines of which the majority
of the people of that country were opposed, and who re-
garded it as a mark of degradation. What followed? Under
pretence of advancing the interests of religion, a series of the
most cruel persecutions had been inflicted upon the people.
—(Cheers.) He was not seeking to bring discredit upon
that Church, nor did he feel that there would be any advan-
tage in calling the attention of the House to the scandalous
barbarities and injustices that had been practised there under
the pretence of promoting the Protestant religion. What was
the Church of Ireland but a monument of persecutions and in-
justices?—( Hear, hear.) What did they desire?—that it
should no longer possess that character—that it should be no
longer hostile to the feelings of the Catholics of that country
Hear, hear)—that they should correct their former
errors—that they should propitiate and strengthen the
Protestant Church there—not that they should confer a benefit
upon the Catholics, but that they should do what was benefi-
cial to the Protestant Establishment. If they wished to pro-
mote the interests of that Church and extend its doctrines,
what could put them in the way of doing so more effectually
than to educate the people ? From the feeling which it was
well-known existed between Protestants and riCatholics need
he refer to the beneficial effects of having them educated to-
gether. They were all aware of the good effects of bring-
ing up children at school together, and no Roman Ca-
tholic child could be ill-affected towards a Church
to which it was indebted for the education it had received.
He thought that the ardour and vigour of the opposition given
to the proposition of the Noble Lord was much enhanced by
the fear of a large surplus, and that if it were not to cost
them nothing, they would not fight so hard for it.—( Cheers.)
When he looked back at all the speeches that had been made
upon the question, he was bound to say that in his conscience
he believed that all the strength of argument was on their
side. No man could urge that Church property was inaliena-
ble who had ever given the question the least thought.—
(Cheers.) It had been said, " You must not grant this, for
it is only the first of a series of demands." There was no
doubt but it was the first of a series, but who was to judge of
the next? Was it the Catholics of Ireland ? No. It
it was the British Parliament who were to decide 'upon
the case whatever it might be, and it would depend upon the
character of the demand whether it would be granted or not.
If they asked anything that was inconsistent with the mainte-
nance of the Protestant Establishment, or dangerous to the
interests of the country, it would be refused. But because
that such demands might be made, was it just to refuse that
one ?—( Cheers.) What statesman, he would ask, had ever
said—" Tell me what you are going to ask next, and then I
will decide upon your present demand ? "—( Cheers.) Such
had been the conduct of the parties opposite in former times ;
and what was it gave rise to the demand which carried the
Catholic Bill and the Reform Bill, but the wild and unstates-
man-like conduct of the Honourable Gentleman opposite ?
—Great cheering.) They were pursuing the same course
now ; and he prophecied that if they carried their opinions
on that question, the result would be the same as on former
ones. The Noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) had likened
the question to a wedge. What was the Reform Bill but a
wedge ? It was passed for the purpose of placing a wedge
in the hands of the people of England. Another argument
used by the opposite side was to call those on his side of the
House Destructives. Destructives I—what should they wish
for a destruction of property for ?—they were possessed of
some. They had prospered under the British Government,
and had received their instruction from the Church, and were
attached to its principles. He disclaimed the imputation so
far is regarded himself, and threw it back with scorn. He
trusted that would only be the first of a series, and that the
next demand on the part of the people would be one which
the country had as much right to expect to have
granted as that one.—( Cheers.) The same arguments as
were now put forward were used in opposition to the Catholic
question. The Hon. Gentleman opposite said then, " that
question once settled in your favour, you will come for more."
But what was the consequence ? The people gathered fresh
strength, and made the demands in such a manner that the
very same Hon. Gentlemen were obliged to come down
and grant that which before they so strenuously opposed.
To them he would say--" If you refuse this boon the character
of your Government is stamped by your refusal ; you say, in
fact, to the country—We refuse all those practical reforms
which you have been taught to expect from us."—( Hear. )
But where would be their sense of fairness ? He agreed with
certain Gentlemen in that House, although he was of no party,
yet he was ready to support any measures which were likely to
benefit the people. He had no vow, no alliance, no partiality,
to any particular Government, but to that which would best
promote the interests of the nation ; and if he found the Go-
vernment of the Right Hon. Baronet to be of that character,
he would certainly soon take his seat on the other side of
the House, but he could not believe or hope for such a
prospect.—( Cheers.) Much had been said about inde-
cision and difference of opinion amongst those who supported
the resolution ; but if he agreed with certain Gentlemen on this
question up to a certain extent, where would be the absurdity
of his voting with them ?—( Hear, hear.) Reform of the
Church was the point at which he aimed, and the point to
which they went, but beyond that they might travel by them-
selves.—(Hear.) The Hon. Gentlemen opposite amused
themselves, as though they were all agreed—( Cheers and
laughter)—they amused themselves with stating that one
Right Hon. Gentleman had said something in favor of the Re-
peal of the Union, and another something else ; but he was happy
to act in concurrence with them as far as what they professed and
supported what was calculated to benefit the country, and no fur-
ther. Why should this question be considered in referenc to
some ultra opinions on other points of some Hon. Members ?
Let the arguments be looked at in reference to the particular
measure now proposed, and where was the inconsistency of
doing so ? Was not the inconsistency on the other side ?
For, why were the public to be deluded by statements
that all the Hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House
were agreed to attack and destroy the Protestant Church,
when in fact they were only asking to render it more substan-
tial, beautiful, and efficient 1 The arguments of the gentlemen
on the other side were not founded on their own opinions, but
upon those of others, and the general character of some who
opposed them. That was unjust both to themselves--those
Hon. Gentlemen and the Church which they professed to sup-
port.—(Cheers.) He trusted he should have some arguments
to shew that it was not consistent to educate the child
without enquiring into the religion of the parent.—( Hear.)
It was proposed temporarily to apply the surplus revenue of
the Church to the purposes of education, thus returning it
to its proper and original channel, though it would flow with
tenfold benefit to that very Church, and deprive the Catholic
Church of that advantage which had given prosperity to every
Church, and even to our own Church namely, persecution.
Let the Right lion. Gentlemen opposite state their objections,
and not treat him and the question with ridicule, by saying
that they would decide upon the question at a future time,
but merely content themselves with speculations at present as
to some unknown series of substantial Reforms. He trusted
this would be the first of the series--(hear, hear)--and he ap-
pealed to them, by the love which they bore to the Church,
and their sense of duty towards it, and by their regard for those
who were now Catholics, but whom he hoped some day would
become Protestant, to allow this Reform to take its course, and
to seek to perpetuate the Church by passing this resolution.
Mr. G 0 ULB URN was aware that at that late period of
the discussion he could not offer much to command the atten-
tion of the House, or that the House would be willing to at-
tend to any arguments upon points that had been so long under

discussion. He was sensible of the disadvantages under
he laboured in offering himself to the House, but on the We
hand, he had at that late period of the debate great adoo.
tages—for, in common with the House ; he was ill Peseesrt
sion of the' views of those different parties who suPPee.
the motion, as announced in the speeches they had made'
He had before him not only the motion, guarded as it "seed
its terms, and framed by the Noble mover—necessarily framed
with a view to combine the greatest possible amount of s,ul!d
port in favour of the motion—( Hear, hear)—but they
learned from the speeches of the Honourable Gentlemen
who support the resolution, much more
expect'
the resolution itself, :the object which they so
ed to derive from the resolution, and what were toeseof
its final results.--( Hear.) They had not only the speech
Hon. Gentlemen, but they had what was, perhaps, more s. ;an
nificant; the silence of others from whom they might expect distinctly hall
indication of opinion.—(Loud cries of " Hear.") He hadone
doubt but that silence indicated as strongly on the
side what were the feelings of those by whom it was ob-
served, as the speeches of the other parties showed what were.
their feelings. The Honourable and Learned Gentleman_
who bad just sat down taxed those who were oppos?d
_itl
him with e. determination to resist the reform el floo
abuses, and in applying that argument to the eti,eal:,„b
before the House, had assumed that as the Irish Glut_
was, in his opinion, a sinecure Church, if the Geeoe_7e
ment did not consent to adopt the proposition of the P, „o')e
Lord, which was not:to reform but to destroy, that, therefore
they were not Reformers. He (Mr. G.) denied that proripool_
tion. He denied it on the part of the Government, a.
his own part. He would say, that the Irish Church did not
answer the terms of a sinecure Church—that heavy and
portant duties were discharged by the Ministers of that Cbure.
—( Hear, hear, bear)—and that those duties were not t
estimated by the number of those who
by
the e ure-
ligion of the Church of England, but by the difficulties
that obstructed the execution of those duties.—(Cheer..)
bad
The Right Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Cambridge,
eo
produced thirteen instances of parishes in which there were
resident Protestants; but even supposing that out of the extent
of the Church of Ireland, there were ten or twelve such pa'
!.
rishes, did that justify them in denouncing the whole es
blishinent as a sinecure? He did know the particular circum-
stances 17
stances of those parishes, but he thought he could affara,
explanation of those circumstances, and prove that Ile
absence of individual Protestants in those parishes are'
not from the failure in the discharge of their
_r
du-
ties on the part of the clergy, or that there was 311,4.
thiug to which they could really attach the name 5
sinecure.—( Hear, hear.) He had been always atneoua,
to remedy the abuses of the Establishment, but it `lB
i
impossible to do so without maintaining its revenues. le`s
was confident that those parishes form part of Unions. It `25
not new to the House nor to the country that he had always,
denounced the system of Unions of Parishes, and he had ul
tended to bring forward a measure for the dissolution of Unto
He was not a Reformer in the sense of the Hon. and Learn. ~
Gentleman ( Sergeant Wilde). He was anxious not to d
stroy, but to reform. He would therefore say that the parise
in question must have formed parts of Unions, and it
very obvious that where a great many parishes' ,111.21
united to form a benefice, the Protestant n(41111147,
was necessarily drawn to that part of the Union
which the Clergyman's house was situated. If, therefore*
they drew from those parishes the Protestant population whic
necessarily belonged to them, and got them all into one pariah
he put it to Hon. Gentlemen whether those parishes were t,
be taken as instances of the general character of the &tit
lished Church of Ireland ? He was quite confident, withal"'
reference to any documents, that those were the ell'',
cumstances upon which the Right Honourable Gentle=
man (Mr. Spring Riee) had founded his argument.
What was the way in which sinecures were dealt with ?
if there was an office, which by misconduct on the part of the;
owner had become a sinecure, and yet was a necessary of was made for making that office efficient for the 1011%*
poses for which it was instituted—that course was morn
system of reform than of abolishing it altogether. He would
say, apply that principle to the Church—reform all abuses, but •
do not destroy the Church itself--( Hear, hear, and cheersJ"
That was the mode in which he would reform those
abuses to which the Honourable and Learned Gentlereau
had alluded. If there was an instance in which the ITU'
gious duties had been neglected, whether by the fault
of the incumbent—whether by the previous crimes of Perlis.' ;
ment—or whether by the neglect of former Govern.e,nents--h°
would say it was the duty of the House, in the first instances
to redress those abuses. But if the resolution of the Noble
Lord was adopted by the House, they would effectually
capacitate the Government and the Legislature from
putties
the Church on the footing required. Moreover, in the view,it
took of it, they would violate the sacred principles on whir"
the Established Church in Ireland was founded, to the sub-
serviency of the establishment itself. What did the resolu-
tion of the Noble Lord profess to accomplish ? It assumed ill
the first place that there was a surplus of the revenues of the '.
Irish Church, after having provided for the spiritual purposes'
that were required. He said the resolution assumed, it'
because it was impossible to advert to the debate wiehour
observing that no Honourable Gentleman who had sp
had specifically assured the House that there was any sierelus,i
They had had statements from those who wet e best in formed
upon these subjects, that the present income was not adequate to the Establishment in its present form, still less to Vac inalr
tenance of that improved state which they were now approaea"
ing. They had statements to show that the funds. were ffi ;II:4 sucient to provide for those objects which Parresenent had
already pointed out.—( Hear, hear.) The expectrstions of thme
Catholic population had been raised, that they well,:
benefit by a surplus that was to be created out of the r" venues of the Church.--( Hear, hear.) The course of the Me-
sure must be taken to be this—to satisfy the clergy oft
Established Church out of the pittance that might be lel'
after providing for other purposes. That was the true essence
of the destructive nature of this resolution. It excited a boll
'
which it was impossible ever to realize. He had obs ercet
with delight, in the course of that discussion that that Para
of the Established Church which was in Ireland was considefee
an object of attachment and veneration by those who were r'e
acknowledged Members of the Church of England.—(ll"r')
But the Hon. and Learned Member was mistaken as try the
e
meeting which was held in support of the Protestant Chain
It consisted of Presbyterians, as well as of Protestants,. an.
was held in the midst of a Presbyterian country. These Pres-
byterians were desirous to maintain the Protestant C letTc f
not as the representatives of their adherence to the doctrines
the Church of England, but because they looked upon. it as
the bulwark of Protestantism, which their duty and cons/ e'er.
alike compel them to respect. Because he saw in the .rese'
tion proposed by the Noble Lord the first invasion of the tee
by which the doctrines of the Church Establishment eall;,
propagated, he would oppose it.—( Hear, hear, bear.) e.
Honourable and Learned Gentleman (Mr. Wilde) Inas ,
us that he had no objection to the alienation of Chu '4,
property to any other objects than those connected svith r'
Established Church. It would be presumption in hi .n 1 (
Goulburn) to differ from a lawyer of such emineio ce 4341
legal question, but when he heard the argument he load us
in support of his opinion, he (Mr. Goulburn) was itastieneu;
its futility. H (Mr. W.) had said that in the time I.
Henry the Bth, e: seized upon the monasteries, and gave dte
possessions to ' enlarge the incomes of private iauslividueelk
All considered that act as a violation of property, ,no tnartr
whether their opinions may be on the property of Vae refo '
tion which followed. It was a violent abstraction of proPerir
and it was most disgraceful, the conferring it upon earner
Can any man who so considers that act now agree that Protester
Church? is a fair ground for the invasion of the property of the Protester
Were they to go back to the times 'of Henry VII'
and to act upon the principles which governed his condi ►lc4o
and learn from his arbitrary acts how they ought now 1i
legislate? If that was a great act of spoliation, were tlU'„
justified in pursuing a similar course after a lapse of so ir
years ? What had they not to anticipate, if, after such an weal ",,t
ple, they proceeded to divert Church property from its oriteir '1,74
purpose? And what had they not to expect after ? But, s `fit
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, the Church has no 141 ,be
to this property, as it was originally in the possession of I
Roman Catholics ; and he asked was it not just to with&
it from the Protestants and restore it to the Catholics
(Hear.) He (Mr. G.) concurred in the argument of ;rty
Solicitor-General, and was of opinion that this props 're
devolved on the Established 'Church without reference to
tbe
circumstances connected with its transfer. If they look to
04
times when this property was conferred on the Pro the
Church of England and Ireland, they would find th .at ion
greater part of these donations was made when the r el'lgto
had become purer than it was before. He objected
anse
resolution—first, because that a surplus revenue exist( ;jo
next, because it proposed to administer the sur plus
a way contrary to that for which it was origin gall
tended.--( Hear, hear.) Besides, the indefinite natter
of the declaration is full of danger, and while i viols 7
a principle for which he contended, namely, the ins.' tolabilit)ouf
Church property—it would tend to defeat the profess object'
the resolution, which was the restoration of the p b 4
ea of
country. That will be the consequence, from elites eePef
tions which such a resolution would naturally reeate ; 1)11' had another objection to it, as it proposed to invade a e*°e':eeey
of a private nature, and therefore not only endangered Chu;iete
property, but what was of equal consequence, that of a sp'"
character. It was well known that that portion of ( ;flu
property which went under the name of advowsons was str leo
of a private character. If the Noble Lord proposed to :ins •
from those parishes the means they at present had of r
taining the Protestant Clergymen, he wished the Nolot -'7,10
or some friend of his would state how he got rid of th e "
culty and danger attending private property.--(Hear, nea of
It might be said that the Noble Lord made an excel icullreit
the advowsons. Could that be called a reform in the ( %el'itee
when it would have the effect of leaving some cleagymers so-
full possession of the emoluments of these livings, a, act 'ar :rs
be
priate that of others to different purposes ? Could s ads.: tw ;mei
intention of the Noble Lord?—he should think n'Jt 11 so
that allay the feeling of irritation that had hewn to tic' yea much of, of the peasantry of Ireland ? It would have j a
d in-
d
different effect. It would arm them against the lan 0:1! ' ea
terest of the country. It had been said, that Parlian not"
the perfect right to apply the property of the Church „-ntsre
purposes. That argument bad been used by the tri°Thad
able Member for Nottingham, who,'as an author as
adverted to Blackstone, who stated that the Chu %d wbe
established by law, and therefore that its revenues ( ":)-f the
applied to other purposes of the law. If the revenue: ;
o°f the
Irish Church were applied to other purposes than those .liat
support of the Church, was the House prepared to say
leers ,)
same principle would not apply to the English Church. ( C 1,
In his opinion the question involved not a he
only the right:
Church of Ireland, but those of the Church of En Pe/ !
had
They had been told by the Hen. Gentleman opposite that they .1°
dulged in personalities. No one deprecated personalities' more r
himself; but he did not think it a personality to advert to the co ne
af• of individual Meikibers to illustrate arguments. They had bee.? 0
mired, that had the late Government remained in office they woulcill 0