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

Tan SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, JULY 24 1837\

I;new, yes never can have that :3: ability oltil this question be
finally settled.—( Cheers. ) I look with horror at the idea of
trusting the settlement of this question to chance and to time;
and to leave the Irish people, who are now in a state of san-
guine expectation, with their hopes chilled, and their feelings
goaded by constant irritation, into an attempt to cut the knot
themselves by violent means.—( Cheers.) Ido not charge the
Right lion. 'Baronet with contemplating any such result; but
I do, notwithstanding, hold that nothin..'- less than an aggra-
vated state of irritated keeling can folios the disappointment
of those hopes that are now excited in the minds of the Catho-
lie people of Ireland. I therefore most strongly urge upon
this house the necessity of at once goirv* into committee on
this Bill, undivided in its provisions—of discussing it fairly
and calmly in that committee—and of trying to come to some
understanding respecting it. But, at the same time, I also
urge upon the house the. absolute necessity of refusing to at-
tempt any oti.er settlement of the question, than that which
will connect a change in the appropriation of the revenues of
the Irish Church with a change in the mode of collecting those
revenues.—( Cheers. )
Sir ROBERT BAT E SON complained of the attack which
the Right Hon. Member for St. Alban's had made on the
Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for Cumberland. It would
have been in better taste if the Hon. Member had waited until
that Right Hon. Baronet was in his place, before he had made
his attack. He did not wish to say anything irritating, but
when lie heard the violent observations of the Hon. Member—
Mr. WARD explained. !le moved the adjournment last
night, therefore be had no reason to suppose that the Right Hon.
Baronet would not have been in his place to-day. But-seeing
the Noble Lord, the Member for South Lancashire, present

(Lord Stanley), he (Mi. Ward) would not lose the argument
which he wished to urge in consequence of the absence of the
Right Hon. Baronet, however he might feel himself called
upon, by reason of that absence, to refrain from urging it so
strongly as he otherwise might have done.
Sir ROBERT BATE SON understood that another Hon. '
Member had moved the adjournment. With regard to the
measure before ,the House, he considered it not a measure of
peace to his unhappy country ; but that it would be the means
of promoting religious animosities, and would contribute to a
civil and religious warfare—perhaps a rebellion in Ireland. If
it should succeed, what would be its effect on Protestants ?
There bad lone been a systematic attempt to put down Pro-
testants in Ireland. This was part and parcel of that system.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer had attacked gentlemen on
his (Sir R. Bateson's) side of the House, with having changed
their opinions. This did not apply to him, for he had always
been an advocate for an efficient and useful reform of the Pro-
testant Church. An. -Hon. Member (Mr. Walker) had told
the House that he approved of this measure, because it
would Christianize the Protestant Church. He also told
the House that he was a Protestant • but if those were his
opinions, he (Sir R. Bateson) thought the sooner he left
that church, the sooner would he act in consistency with
his opinions. The Noble Lord (Lord Howick) talked last
night of the enormities of the Irish Protestant Church.
If the Noble Lord, as a member of the Cabinet, thought
such enormities existed, it would be better for him and his
colleagues at once to say—Let us extinguish that Church ; let
the Roman Catholic Church be established in its place. It
was altogether a most extraordinary speech from a Cabinet
Minister, and much more worthy of a mob orator in Dublin.
He did, in his conscience, believe that it was from the fear
of censure from the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin,
who had certainly more power than the Noble Lord, and all
the Cabinet besides—that the Cabinet had determined to ad-
vocate this measure. Allusion had been made to the Irish and
Scotch Members being able to carry this measure. It was
true, for a majority of English Members never would carry
it through the House. But it was his conscientious opinion,
that the Roman Catholic Members had no right to give their
vote upon this question.—( Laughter.)
Mr. SHEIL said that the Hon. Baronet, who had desig-
nated himself as the representative of the intelligence of Pro-
testant Ireland, and afforded such proofs of his capacity to
fulfil the functions which lie was deputed to discharge, had, in
die conclusion of his speech, contradicted the commencement.
Ae had referred to a powerful-party by which the Government
were supported ; and ,yet in the outset he had spoken of the
Irish Whig Members in a tone of depreciation. He (Mr. S.),
approved of this Bill because it contained a great principle—
that principle of which the germ was to be found in the Tem-
poralities Bill, and which the Noble Lord opposite had had the
merit of depositing.
Lord STANLEY.—No, no.
Mr. SHE IL.—That Bill contained a clause providing for
the suspension of benefices.
Lord STANLEY.—For what purposa ?
Mr. SHE IL—Some people take the will for the deed ; he
should take the deed for the will. He cared not for what pur-
pose ; the fact was sufficient. Districts in Ireland under that
Bill were to be left without a clergyman. The few Protes-
tant inhabitants were thus de facto deprived of the benefits of
spiritual consolation. From these premises, in-fact, a conclu-
sion in principle was to be derived ; and lie cared not, if the
premises were admitted,'whether the inference should be dis-
puted by one so deeply concerned in its denial. He should
pass to the question before the House. The motion was se-
lected as the ground on which the combined (strangely com-
bined) opponents of the Government, are to try their, strength.
No stand was made on the Corporation Bill ; the Conserva-
tives had the virtue not to resist what they had not the cou,
rage to propose. But, on the Irish Church prejudice may
be excited, fanaticism may be kindled, misrepresentation may
be diffused; accordingly, round the standard of sinecurism a
rally is made, and an alliance (a holy one) is formed between
the Conservative party (whom no one can fairly blame) and
the ex-Reformers, the antagonists of their old friends, and the
friends of their old antagonists—dealers in pious philippics and
religious intrigue. To popular excitement, connected with
the old horror of Popery, it was manifest that these united
forces look ; but they will find (to use a phrase of the Hon.
Member for Tamworth) that they mistake the echo of their
own delusions for the confirmation of 'public opinion.—( Loud
cheers.) Where are the petitions of the people ? Have even
the Cumberland yeomen stirred.—(Great cheers.) 'We have
heard of a declaration from a fanatical Scotch Synod, but
from the mass of the Scotch people has any remonstrance
been preferred ? 'How did the majority of Scotch Members
vote, on the resolution on which this Bill is founded ? No,
Sir ; the people of that country look to this Government with
a confidence, which appeals to antiquated theology cannot dis-
turb. Why was an extract from Clarendon read by the Right
Hon. Baronet? Was it to produce an impression in the high-
est quarter ? The Right Hon. Baronet produced the passage,
in which the downfal of the Motarchy was referred to the
exclusion of the Bishops in the House of Lords. Now, this
very passage had been adverted to, in 1831, by Mr. Croker ;
and what was the reply of the Noble Lord, the Member for
Lancashire? These were his words .‘ At length, when
Charles wanted to force Episcopacy upon Scotland, he was
forced to call together that Parliament which he had for so
many years determined to dispense with. But they knew
him too well, to put any trust in him. When he spoke of
grievances, they. spoke of subsidies ; and when they properly
refused them without better security than promises, the in-
sincerity of which they were convinced of, he had recourse to
a prompt and abrupt dissolution, and thus added wanton insult
to continued injury.—( Loud cheering.) He was soon again
compelled to call them together. Again he thought to tem-
porise, and again he met the same resistance; and his tyranny
ended, as I hope tyranny ever will end, in base, and timid, and
degrading coneession."—( Loud cheers.) Such is the account
given by the Noble Lord opposite, .a great orator, and a most
valuable historian, of the causes which led to that event, which
the Member for Cumberland has attributed exclusively to the
fall of the Church.—(Cheers.) But since citations from
Clarendon bad been indulged in, be should presume to read one
from Rapin, which bore at least as immediately upon the sub-
ject. Speaking of the Chnrch abuses in the reign of Henry
IV., he says :—" The King demanded an aid of money of time
Commons, who took occasion from thence to renew their former
instances with regard to the clergy. Wickliffe 's doctrine had
gained so much ground, that, the majority of the House of-
Commons leaned that way. Thus biassed, the Commons pre-
sented two petitions to the King—one against the clergy, the
other in behalf of the Lollards. In the first, they set forthe•
` That the clergy made an ill use of their riches, and consumed
their incomes in a very different manner from the donor's in-
tent; that,their revenues were excessive, and, consequently, it
was necessary to lessen them ; that by this means the kingdom's
safety would be better provided for, the poor better maintained,
and the clergy more attached to their duty." The clergy
.considered the petition as tending to undermine all religion.
This was industriously insinuated to the King',' with all the
aggravation which parties concerned are capable of displaying
on such an occasion.— (Loud cheers.) This passage lie re-
ferred to, in order to show that the doctrine of secular appro-
priation was not new, and that Catholics were prompt to ap-
ply it to their own Church when the occasion required. He
should return to the matter more immediately before the
House. The course pursued by the opponents of this Bill
was remarkable. After the second reading they oppose the
principle, before the Committee they criticize the details..
They opposed the Bill of last year on the second reading,
' although it did not contain the appropriation clause. This
Bill contains an appropriation clause, and much besides,
which is condemned—nothing which is approved; yet the
second reading passes without either a division or a comment.
Every thing is objected to ; they who would have cut 25/.
per cent. from the incomes of the clergy, complain of a sub-
traction from tithes; and the great author of the metallic
currency, who has reduced rents to oncAialf, thinks that the
Church ought not in its finances to be affected by the revo-
' lutions of Mark-lane.—(Loud chem.) Will the great
Cumberland political economist agree in this view ? It is
insisted that there will be no surplus. If there be not, no
practical harm will be done to the Church ; but the recog-
nition -of the principle will be a just and conciliatory tribute to
the reasonable feelings of the Irish people. But how do
you make out that there will be no surplus ? You expa-
tiate on the property of the Irish Church. Why did you
always refuse a Committee on the subject ? It was repeatedly
proposed by the Hon. Member fur Middlesex. You state
that the revenues had been exaggerated —but what test will
you employ to ascertain, then, what is the amount of the
. Bishops revenues? You say that they do not 'exceed 130,000/.
a year—but their amount really is 150 000/., as returned by
the dignitaries themselves. Whether this ought to be con-
elusive I will not determine ; but this Ido know, that in cal-
culating the net income, the Bishops have deducted agents'
fees 4;p:, all expenses incidental to the collection of their for-
, tunes. I know that the income of the Bishop of Armagh,
which is now 17,000/. a year, will rise to 210001 a year by
his own return, and that neither this increase, nor any other
is included in the 150,000/. It is stated that the glebe lands
of Ireland are worth only 70,0001. a year. Even the Hon.
Member for Tamworth has stated that Lord Althorp has un-
derrated the value of the glebe lands. They are 85,000 acres
(fire Irish make eight English). Most glebes have good
houses on them, and 12,000/. a year is not an exaggerated
estimate, But why has not a return of their value been ob..
tained ? Again, on what authority is the amount of ministers'

on4ttig

.icings :.,et forth ? I come to a most impogant item, Which
illustrates the spirit of depreciation with which the wealth of
the Church is reduced by its advocates. I hold a return of
the amount of the property.sof the minor Ecclesiastical Cor-
porations. It is stated to be 57,0001. a year. At what sum
did Lord Althorp, before that return was made, estimate this
portion of the ecclesiastical possessions? At 2,0001. But it
la alleged a large portion of that sum is applicable to the
.reparation of cathedrals. Granted—but still is it not
Church property ? And is it not unfair to exclude it from
the account?—( Loud Cheers.) But why are the surplus.fees
never mentioned ? They are not fixed, permanent property;
true—but in estimating the menus of livelihood of the Clergy
we must take this item of sustenance into consideration. Thus
it is manifest that there never has been a just and full account
of Church property ; and if there has not, the blame lies with
those who have refused Committees, and never given us access
to the true sources of information. To the leading features
in the Report, and to no other, he should tefer. What had
become of the three millions of Protestanti, of which the
Member for the University of Oxford had so often said so
much ? There appeared to be only 852,000 Episcopal Pro •
testants in Ireland, and even they included the Methodists,
who were attached by so slender a tie-to the Caurch ; they
had no episcopal ordination, no imposition of hands (he could
not understand by what medium their clergy received the Di-
vine Spirit.) They might have the same faith, but they had
not the same discipline, nor the same Government ; and an
alien Priesthood would soon become a hostile one. But look

to the Presbyterians. In the Province of Armagh (the north
of Ireland) the fortress of orthodoxy, there were upwards of
600,030 Presbyterians, and there were not 600,000 Episcopal
Protestants. What inference did he draw from thence? This
—that the allegation that the Church is the tie between Eng-
land and Ireland is a fallacy.—( Hear, hear.) The Pres-
byterians are attached to England—they arc hostile to the
Church - (so says the Moderator of the Ulster Synod, Mr.
Montgomery)—the conclusion is obvious. You do not need
the Church treasure to fill the military chest, out of
which the garrison of Ireland (the Irish Protestants) are to
be remunerated for their mercenary allegiance.—( Cheers. )
Thus far for the North ; descend to other districts. He shohld
take one only—the province of Tuam. What was its eccle-
siastical wealth? The returns showed that the episcopal re-
vitsue in that province amounted to 22,000/. a year at the least.
The glebe lands, prebendary revenue, and tithes amounted
to at least 100,000/., including the first item. He believed
that -it was much more. This was a large sum. Now
came the question, " How many Protestants were there in
the province ?" There were 1,100,000 Catholics, and
what would the House think? 300,000 Protestants? No,
Two hundred thousand? No. One? No, no ; only forty-
five thousand.—(Lotid cheers.) Gracious God ! one hun-
dred thousand a-year, for the " spiritual consolation " of
forty-five thousand Protestants ! This was in itself most gross;
but contrast made it monstrous. Turn from Tuam to a neigh.
bouring country. Not France. because there is a foolish no-
tion that the French arc all infidels, and therefore no analogy
can be deelved from their example. Turn to a country just
near you, where there is great zeal in religion, a zeal which
Protestants might regard as almost equivalent to fanaticism—
turn to Belgium, your ally, for which you have sacrificed 30
much, the Catholic country with a Protestant King (we
Catholics are, after all, not so very exacting)—turn to Bel-
gium, and what state of things do you find there? There
arc four millions of Catholics. Whit hierarchy suffices for
that number ? One Archbishop and four Bishops. How much
money do they receive? for that, after all, is the question.
Why 17,0001. a year, by which the seminaries attached to
their sees, as well as their own dignities, arc sustained.
Gracious Heaven ! the Irish Primate with 23,0001. a-year, and
the whole Belgian hierarchy, and all their establishments, with
only 17,0001. ! Pass to the priesthood. Here is the Belgian
budget. I have the official document here.—( Loud cheers.)
The entire Church establishment of Belgium does not cost
more than the sum devoted to the salvation of 45,000 Protest-
ants in the province of Tuam—(Loud cheers)—and mark—
the duties of the Catholic Clergy are infinitely more laborious.
The. practice of confession is alone sufficient to render the
functions of the Catholic priest far more onerous than those
of -the Protestant pastor. And, with this small sum, religion
thrives in Belgium—religion never dies except of pecuniary
repletion—while the Protestant Church in Ireland, with all
its wealth, makes in conversion very little or no way. But
you may tell me that I ought not to refer to a foreign country :
be it so. I will go to Scotland. I have been invited to travel
thither by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Cum-
berland. 1k tells me that scme Scotch Synod or other has
interfered in our Irish affairs. I stop not to inquire into their
rights, or their discretion. I stop not to ask whether they or
their ancestors revolted against gpiscopacy, and won the en-
joyment of their religion with their good broad swords, and
established the great principle, that the Church of the
minority should riot live at the cost of the majority of the
people. Putting these considerations aside,' I ask the
plain question, " How much does the Scotch Church
cost ?" Not certainly 300,0001. a year. There are nearly two
millions of churchmen in Scotland ; they have about 300,000/.
a year (I really believe less) for their spiritual wants. There
a-e in Ireland not half the number, and there is nearly three
times as much money.—(Loud cheers.) The advocates of
the Irish Church, in talking of the amount which ought to
be givers to a Protestant clergyman, refer to the sum paid
by the Catholic peasantry to the Catholic priest.- Give the
parson so much out of tithes, because the Catholics give
so much to their priests. Out of what fund? Out of their
own uncontrolled, spontaneous liberality—out of their own
pockets, and out of their own hearts—( Loud cheers)—
proving the success, the triumph, of the voluntary principle,
the virtue of the priesthood, the gratitude of the people, the
noble moral qualities that reside in the Irish people. Yes ;
I speak it with pride, we maintain our priests in comfort,
our hierarchy in respectability, in the Christian mediocrity
that becomes them ; to the worship of our God we raise mag-
nificent temples, worthy of the lofty recollections associated
with our religion, and with spires " whose silent finger point
to heaven ;" and when, out of our own resources, we do all
this, when, paupers as we are represented to be, we have
thus, unaided by the State, not only given sustainment, but
a just elevation to our ancient Church; - how paltry it is of
Protestantism, with its enormous revenues, boasting as it
does, that all the aristocracy belong to it, to come here,
making a poor face, and with its coffers replenished with
the public -gold, whining and whimpering about the wretched
destitution to which it is reduced.—(Loud cheering.)
At first view this subject seems to be a wretched dispute be-
tween Catholic and Protestant— a miserable sectarian contro-
versy. It is no such thing; it is the very self-same question
by which •Cabinet after Cabinet has been annihilated—of
which the Catholic Question was but a part ;—it is the
struggle for .'complete political equality on the part of the
overwhelming majority upon one hand, and for political ascen-
dancy on the part of the minority upon the other.—(Loud
cheers.) There are men now living who recollect the time
when the great bulk of the Irish people were reduced to a
state to which serfship and helotism might be justly applied.
We had no property, and we could not by law acquire it ; we
had no intelligence, and all access to the sources of education
was denied us ; we were not only excluded from -every poli-
tical privilege, but shut out from every honourable profession.
Ile mass of the Irish people appeared to be a mere dull,
inert, inanimate, and almost brute heap of senseless matter;
yet within it the principles of vitality were contained. Those
principles were by great events brought out. There are
two men in this House, who, of the power of the Irish
people, have had the most painful, the most dear-bought
—I hope, it will prove to be the most instructive expe.-
rience ; and those two men are the Members for Tamworth
and for Lancashire. Both entered official life as Secre-
taries
.for Ireland—both devoted themselves to ascendancy
—and both became its victims..--s(Loud cheers.) ' In' 1813'
the Member for Tamworth was appointed Secretary to the:
Lord- Lieutenant ; and uniting great capacity with great
anxiety to do good,. had circumstances been less untoward,
and had he had just laws to administer, how different would
have been his government ? But he was attached to a party
which neutralized his talents and frustrated his. purpose's.
He could not go to the root of the evil ; and although he now
expresses a strong disrelish for Ecclesiastical abuses, of that
disrelish while he was in office he gave no very unequivocal
evidence, and allowed sinecures (those objects of his virtuous
abhorrence), to remain undisturbed. He had no recourse, ex-
cept measures of regression; the Insurrection-Act was renewed,
and on the 3d of June, 1814, a Proclamation was issued under
his auspices, to pi event the assemblages of the people. The
Catholic Board was put down ; not so the spirit of the people;
it-"svgs only dormant-it never can be dead.—( Loud cheers.)
It was resuscitated in that great confederacy which embraced
an active people, and made such a display of union and of
strength, that in 1825 it was deemed requisite by the Ministry,
of which the Right lion. Baronet was a Member, to suppress
it. Vain and idle effort.=-(Loud cheers.) It was laughed
by us to scorn. We returned from London, where we had
agreed to connect the Church by money with the State, pro-
vided the State should by liberty consent to connect itself with
the people.—(Cheers.) The offer was repudiated. We in-
voked the Irish peasantry, who were armed with the elective
franchise. Those gallant, devoted, dauntless, heroic men
rushed to the hustings with the courage and devotion with
which Irish soldiers, led by you (pointing to Sir H. Hard-
inge), rushed to the breach.—( Great cheering.) The holds
of ascendancy were carried—the Beresfords were annihilated
in Waterford, the Aristocracy was beaten to the earth in Louth.
These were, however, but the preludes for the great encounter.
In two years after, Mr. Vesfy Fitzgerald, having vacated his
scat as Member of the Cabinet, stood for Clare ; he was op-
posed by the leader of the Irish people; he was discomfited ;
the heart of Ireland thrilled with exultation—the national
sympathy became contagious ; the soldiers shouted, and
threw up their caps for joy. Astonished by what they saw—
appalled by what they anticipated, the. Duke and his distin-
guished colleague gave way at last to the power of the Irish
people.—(Loud cheers.) But all had not been accomplished :
it remained that, having won Emancipation for ourselves, we
should secure Reform for you. There was a majority of
English and a majority of Scotch Members against Reform.
It was achieved by the men whom the Irish people had
poured, in a noble exercise of their privileges, into this House.
" We did the State some service, and they know it"—(loud
cheers)— and the first to acknowledge it was the Noble Lord
the Member for Lancashire. Strange, that with that confes-
sion upon his lips, he should not have felt deeply conscious
that the power to which lie had resorted as an auxiliary, might
be converted into an irresistible antagonist ; and that when,
with that fiery eloquence of which he is the master, ho was
amusing the House of Commons, and applying a torch, and
setting the passions of England on fire, it should never have
occurred to him that we, should avail ourselves of his example,
and in as strong and peremptory a tone as that in which he
had demanded the Reform oftehetitPhaerlcioadmee,ntti,latthoeb
jleicetfoorfmeof
Church
the would be required. But lot us take a.brief review
of recent
:—ln
causenalB32,th
of universal calamity was pro-
d u uni-
versal
derision,
eeantss
acid that
in despite of reiterated admonitions, to
whiched.
its It w
projector was as insensible as the animal from which
pro-
duced. v