The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-13 00:00:00

imposed upon them;—ha believed that measure was
a substantial benefit.—(dear, hear.) He had lizard
with extreme regret the comments made upon two
other measures proposed by the Government, which,
however, they might have been received in Ireland,
had been framed by the Government with a
sincere desire to remove just causes of complaint. He
alluded to the Irish Registration Bill and the Mu--
nicipal Franchise Bill. He thought he could show
that a considerable addition was made by one of
these Bills to the county constituency; ✓and not
content with dealing with the county franchise,
they proposed to take off a number of taxes from
the occupiers of 101. houses. They proposed to give
the same municipal franchise to Ireland, as
already existed in England. They had also in-
troduced a measure to remodel the com-
position of the Board of Charitable Works.
The Government proposed to bring in a Bill relative
to charitable bequests, and also that a certain number
of Roman Catholics should be placed upon the board,
in order that this might ensure the confidence of the
Remo Catholic population and the administrators of
the board, and further the Bill would enable them to
make endowments to Roman Catholic bodies. That
measure would be introduced forthwith, and he could
say no more upon the subject at present. A measure
of the late Government, to which he (SirJ. Graham)
gave his support—namely, the Tithe Commutation
Act, had had the effect of relieving the Catholic occupiers
from oppressive burdens. The present Government
had further shown their disposition to ameliorate the
grievances of the. Irish people by extending the
county franchise, and by placing the muni-
cipal franchise upon the same foundation as
it was in England; and they had further pledged
themselves to increase the grant for national educa-
tion in Ireland by the sum of one-third of its present
amount.—(Hear, hear.) It was possible, on account
of the unhappy religious differences, of which the
Right Hon. Gentleman who spoke last truly said that
they embittered even that which was intended in a
spirit of kindness and charity—it was possible, he
(Sir J. Graham) repeated, that the good intentions
of Government might be frustrated; but it was their
sincere desire to prove to their Roman Catholic fellow
subjects that the Government were actuated by
motives consistent with their sense of duty—con-
sistent with sound policy—consistent with a desire to
transmit entire those solemn engagements into which
this country had entered, and to do all ,in their power '
to remove the existing discontent in Ireland. It had
been said that the Established Church of Ireland had

been a type of inferiority to the Catholic popula-
tion. Well, then, the question before the House
was not whether the Catholic priesthood should
be endowed—not whether a State provision should be
made for them ; but the question was a question of
degree, he admitted, among Hon. Gentlemen oppo-
site, some of whom were for taking away the prop?rty
of the Established Church, and applying it to Catho-
purposes, and some for applying it to secular pur-
poses ; but the great question was whether the Esta•
blished Church in Ireland should not be despoiled
of its revenues, or of a large portion of them. He
felt bound to state that to that proposition he could
not give his sanction or support ; and he should also
add—for he felt bound to be frank with the House—
that he feared that if the Protestant Church were
despoiled of its revenues, no other description of pro-
perty would be safe.—(" Oh, oh," from the Opposi-
tion.) A century ago it would not have been for a
moment believed that such language would have been
held towards the Protestant Church by Roman Ca-
Roman Catholics. If it had been said at the time the
Emancipation Bill was passed that an attempt would
be made to despoil the Protestant Church of its
revenues, the idea would have been laughed at, and
scouted.—(Hear.) He repeated, if the property of the
Church of Ireland were to be confiscated, the inva-
sion of property would not stop there. Those were
his opinions, and he thought it to be his duty to
state them fully and fairly to the Holise, for although
it might not be competent for those entrusted with
power to resist the course of events, yet they might
show the danger of adopting any hazardous and rash
resolution which could only involve the country in
ruin;—it was much better for those entrusted with
power to state what they would do, and what they
would not do—what they could do, and what they
could not do. He would not say that this was an
attempt to subvert the Protestant Church, although
there certainly was an attempt to abstract a large por-
tion of its revenues from that Church, for other purposes
than their original intentions, namely, for the pur-
pose of bestowing them upon Roman Catholics, or
for other similar purposes ; and such being the case,
it appeared plainly to him that justice, honour, and
the original contract, forbade the House to accede to
the proposition. The Crown, the Parliament, and the
British people were restrained from acceding to such
a course by the highest moral obligations, and upon
those grounds he felt bound to give his most unhesi-
tating and uncompromising opposition to the motion.
Lord J. RUSSELL then rose and said—Sir, the
question now before the House is of so much im-
portance that I will endeavour to confine myself to
that question, and to touch as lightly as possible
upin any of the other important questions regarding
the state of Ireland. Ido so the more willingly
because I had an opportunity, in an earlier part of
the session, of stating my opinions with respect to
several of those qnestions which now stand upon the
notice paper of the House, and also because I per-
ceive it is the intention of my Right Hon. Friend,
the Member for Waterford, to bring two of these im-

portant subjects under the consideration of the House.
—(Hear, hear.) But at the same time, whilst I wish
to avoid dilating upon other questions, it is impossible,
in considering this question, to put out of view the
present state of Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble
Lord the Secretary for Ireland, in his speech of last
night, rested his defence of the Iriqh Church
mainly upon the ground of prescription, and
he adverted to the speech of his Right
Honourable Friend the Member for Edinburgh,
delivered a few nights ago, and therefore considered
that a prescription of 300 years was a sufficient rea-
son to induce the House not to interfere with the

temporalities of the Irish Church. Now, passing by
the question to which my Right Hon. Friend has
addressed himself, and which is a totally different
question from that now under the consideration of

thQ House.—(Hear, hear)—l should say thatthaq
argument of the Noble Lord might have force, if there
were not circumstances of great difficulty, great
peril—in the present state of Ireland. It cannot, I
think, be urged that prescription is paramount in every
question: of this kind—(hear, hear)—because it

might be asked, if such a. principle were admitted as
inviolate, how we could justify our interference 300
years ago.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") There
was then a longer prescription.—(Hear, hear.)
But
_I find that prescription was overturned.

I think the circumstances of .that day, and
the revolution in religious opinions which took place
in England, was a sufficient ground for the change in
the ecclesiastical establishments and in the tempo-
ralities of the Church of England, and for the enact-

ments of Parliament. But we had set aside prescrip-
tion, a very long prescription, and interfered largely
with the temporalities of the Roman Catholic Church.
If we look at the present •state of Ireland, and

Looking at the proceedings which had taken place
:here during the last year—three or four millions of

people assembled to declare their discontent with the
Government under which they lived—when we sae
that after legal proceedings were taken there still re-
mains discontent—that there still remains a Repeal
Association, as an evidence of that discontent, with
an exchequer more flourishing (if he were
rightly informed) than ever—(" Hear," from the
Tory benches) —I must say, Sir, that, looking
at these things, there must be some grievance in the

state of Ireland of which the peopls of that country
have to complain—(Hear, hear)—to which the House
ought seriously to look ; and as one of those who wish
to maintain the union, who deny that the repeal of
the union would be beneficial to Ireland, I feel myself
obliged to look to other remedies. I cannot admit
that so much discontent pervades such a large mass
of the people, showing itself so continuously in mani-
festations which cannot be mistaken, and at the same

me believe that it is baseless and unfounded.--

Hear, hear.) I cannot admit, on the other hand,

that the remedy proposed to the people of Ireland—the
repeal of the union—would be a remedy which this
House ought to sanction in order to remove the griev-
vances of that people. Among the questions to which our
attention has been turned, one of the most important
is that which my Hon. Friend, the Member for
Sheffield, has brought under our notice.—(Hear.)
The Right Hon. Gentleman had said that the Hon.

Member: for Sheffield stated his case very fairly, and
with great ability and perspecuity. The defence of
the Church of Ireland has been undertaken first by
the Noble Lord, the Secretary of Ireland, and then by
the Right Hon. Gentleman who peculiary represents,
as Member for the University of Dublin, the clergy
of the Church of Ireland. I listened to that Right
Hon. Gentleman as the avowed defender of that
Church, and I was surprised that the Right lion.
Gentleman altogether left out of the question the
condition and state of religion in Ireland.—(Hear,
hear.) Any one listening to the Right Hon. Gentle-
man must have supposed that there was a Protestant
Church, and that my Hon. Friend had stated that
there were certain abuses in it, and that the Right
lion. Gentleman not denying the existence of these
abuses, was showing that they were in course of re-
form, and that he was proving, as he thought, sa •
tisfactorily, that the Church ought to be maintained
in its present size and extent. But is that the ques-
tion ? Is that the present state of Ireland ?
(Cheers.) Does not the Right Hon. Gentleman,
who is the defender of that Church, show what I think

is generally the case—an extraordinary inattention
and neglect to the faith of the great majority of his
countrymen in Ireland—when he puts the question on
that issue ? Sir, lam ready to make greater con-
cessions that any yet made to the Right Hon. Gentle
man. For the sake of argument I will admit that the