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

ere for. annual Parliaments—others for the most
extended suffrage—and yet they all went out together
with the greatest harmony into the lobby, and by so
acting, and not pulling against each other, got the
:Rouse to consent to go into Committee, and, diverse
as were their opinions, managed, by the aid of that
Right Hon. Gentleman himself, and of the Noble
. . Lord next to him (Lord Stanley), to pass a Bill for
a very considerable reform in the representation of
the people.—(Loud cheers.) This was the conse-
quence of acting together, and he had little doubt that
by the same plan they would eventually be enabled to
effect important and desirable changes in the tem-
poralities of the Established Church of Ireland.—
(Hear, hear, and Cheers.) In the course of the
remarks which had fallen from the Gallant
Commodore (Napier), that Hon. and Gallant Gentle-
man had warned the House that if a time of war and
danger arrived, then Ireland could command, and
would have the rights she sought, and the Right
Ron. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham) in reply had said
that they were not to be deterred by threats. But it
did so happen that history furnished them with in-
' stances where danger had secured rights which had
been refused to justice and reason.—(Hear, hear.) In
1779 they were as violently opposed to the demands
made by Ireland as they were now, but when the vo-
lunteers were in arms, and danger from France was
impending, they had conceded those very demands.—
(Cheers.) Lord Granville used the same warnings in
those days, and they were unheeded, And since Lord
Granville had spoken was there not another instance
to the point ? Were they not told in 1828 that they
would not be intimidated, and the very next year,
1829, the demands then made were granted by the
very men who had previously boasted so much of
their courage.—(Loud cheers.) In his (Lord J.
_ Russell's) opinion they should seriously delibe-
rate upon this subject now before the House,
when they could do so without the appearance
of fear,/for he thought it would be a great calamity
ind,etfd to do so when danger might .be impending
over the country.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.")
It was said from the benches opposite that the Irish
were loyal. So they were loyal ; but was that any
reason why they should impose wrongs upon them
which no other country in Europe would submit to ?
—(Great cheers.) When the people of the sister
country saw what was the rule in England—when
they saw what was the rule in Scotland—but that
they strenuously refused the same rule to Ireland—
. let him ask the Government if the warmest loyalty
might not grow cold, if the strongest attachment
might not be converted into enmity.—(Cheers.) He
maid, if such was the condition of Ireland—and if
Hon. Gentlemen opposite could not find some better
and more reasonable arguments to justify such con-
dition—then ought they to go with his Hon. Friend
into the Committee he invited them to. Let them in
that. Committee consider all the various circumstances
incident to the case. Let them consider the best
arrangement that could be devised regarding it. Let
them consider what ought to be done for that worthy
clergy (for in spite of all the taunts that had
been heaped upon them, they were a worthy clergy)
—let them see what these worthy men would agree
to—Aet them try to make them independent, and to
ascertain what their views and feelings were, and let
them give to the laity of Ireland the same privileges
as were. enjoyed in England. Let them, he said, go
into Committee with those intentions, and he did not
despair of the result.—(Cheers.) Until they showed
that spirit—until they showed that they were willing
to be guided by reason in their government, and that
their disposition wasLreally, not merely by word,
but by acts to ' conciliate the affections of
the Irish people—(Hear, hear)—they had no right
to say that they were doing that which was right,
or that they had any sincere desire to do justice to
Ireland.—(The Noble Lord resumed his seat amidst
loud and continued cheering.)
Sir R. PEEL said the motion for the House to go
into Committee, with a view to consider the question
. of the temporalities of Ireland, had been supported by
tl- e usual plausible and specious assevertions.
What was the nature of the proposition of- last year ?
At that time a distink intimation was conveyed to them,
that the Hon. Member thought it was no use their voting
for him, unless they were prepared also to adopt and
carry out his plan. He assumed that the revenue of the
Church in Ireland was about 558,000/ ; and the Hon.
Gentleman most fairly and candidly said, "Do not vote
for me, unless you are prepared to adopt my proposi-
tit n." He said that those who voted for him must not
- be content with Church Temporality Bills, or Appro-
priation Clauses.—(Hear, hear.) He proposed that the
present revenues of the Church should be divided among
the Presbyterians, the Wesleyans, and the Roman Ca-
tholics, appropriating to the latter Church about 412,000/.
of the amount. That was the course he proposed iast
year. Any one who remembered this declaration, and
was not prepared to adopt the Hon. Gentleman's plan,
eves therefore fully justified in refusing to keep up a de-
lusion,and to follow the Hon. Gentleman into a Commit-
etee.—(Hear, hear.) With respect to the allusion that
, had been made to a former declaration of his (Sir It.
Feel's), as to the compact that had been made with the
Church, he did not wish to disregard that compact, unless
it could be shown that an advantage would arise from
doing so. He wished not to alter the language
he then used ; he abided by what he then
said. The opinion he then expressed was the opinion he
still entertained, but it was not ti-.e opinion that had
been imputed to him by the Hon. Gentleman. He stated
distinctly that, though they were not bound irrevocably
to the letter of a compact if their own convictions told
- ' them that an adherence to that compact inflicted wrong
and injury upon the country—(Hear, hear)—yet, at the
same time, he distinctly said, " this compact is a most
material element for our consideration, and nothing
would have a greater tendency to lower the authority of
Parliament than not keeping the faith they had pledged."
The Hon. Member had referred to the speech he (Sir
IL Peel) had made in 1817 ; he had referred to it on
every occasion on which he had brought this subject
before the House. That speech was delivered twenty-
seven years ago ; in it he expressed the apprehension
lie entertained at the time—that the removal of the
Catholic disabilities would not ensure tranquillity. He
apprehended that, after that removal this very question
• would be raised, that it was consistent with what they
knew of human nature that the Roman Catholics should
endeavour to depress the Protestant Establishment, and
raise their own. lie was rather surprised that the Hon.
Gentleman should so constantly remind him merely
of the opinion he then delivered, and not of the state-
ment made in answer to that opinion—the statement
that went far to destroy the arguments on which his
opinions had been founded. In 1821, the chosen advocate
of the Roman Catholic body, the most powerful advocate
they ever possessed, the present Lord Plunkett, referred
to those apprehensions, he (Sir P. Peel) had expressed,
and he did ask the Hon. Gentleman and the House to
bear the counter statement of Lord Plunkett, which did,
itt
the time it was made, produce a great impression on
reasoeing men : it satisfied many of the Protestant com-
munity. That speech was one that stood almost alone;
it displayed great eloquence, united with powers of rea-
soning such as he had rarely heard. In commencing
that speech in 1821, Lord Plunkett presented a petition
which he said was signed by some thousands of theßo-
man Catholics of Ireland. He then proceeded to pass
glowing eulogy on the late Mr. Grattan. He endea!
voured to create an impression in the Protestant mind
of this country that there was no danger to be apP re
bentled from the removal of the Roman Catholic disabi-
lities.- Mr. Plunkett declared solemnly that if he could
entertain the opinion that there would be any peril to the
Protestant Church from the removal of those disabilities
he would abandon the cause he espoused, and range
himself on the other side, and referring to what had
been said by him (Sir R. Peel), Mr. Plunket said, that he
would be hold to affirm the Roman Catholic body har-
boured no feelings of hostility to the Protestant Estab-
lishment, and that they would no more attempt to de-
stroy the Protestant Chui ch Establishment than they
would deprive individuals of their property. That argu-
kent of Mr. Plunket's prevailed over him (Sir R. Peel).
A great change was made in public opinion, and in
1829 he felt it to be his duty to propose to Par-
liament the removal of the Roman Catholic disabilities,
as he had good occasion to conclude from the declare-
Con of their chosen champion, that the Roman Catho-
lics would not make any aggressions upon the Protes-
tant Church.—(Hear, hear.) Then, with regard to the
union, there could be no doubt that in the opinion of
11r. Pitt, and all those who spoke at the time of the
union, it was; their intention to assure the Protestant
• mind in England and Ireland that the Protestant Esta-
blishment, as it then generally existed, should thereafter
be maintained.—(Hear, hear.) It was quite a different
question whether a contract was to be literally ad-
hered to, if it
When Mr. ' _ was proved to be injurious.
Pitt, in 1, 99, brought forward his resolution,
which were to te~ the frisme-work of the Act of Union,
he followed the precedent of the Scotch union. The
words used in one of those resolutions, were that the doe-
trine, and discipline, and revenues of the Established
Church should be maintained. In 1800 additional
words were introduced in the Irish Parliament, which
claimed for the bishops and clergy the power of sitting
• jp convocation, and other words which would hove
ren-
- tiered it impossible to grant any endowment to the Ca-
tholic Church. Mr. Pitt proposed the omission of those
words. There was nothing to be found in the language
- - of Mr. Pitt, or Lord Grenville, or Mr. Dundas, or Lord
Cornwallis, to induce the belief that the temporalities of
the Irish .Church were not to be maintained. His lin-
, pression was that at the time of the union Mr. Pitt con-
templated the removal of The Roman Catholic disabili-
ties—(Hear, hear)—and assurances were giien which
would lead them to expect that.—(Hear, hear.) Ile
also believed that Mr. Pitt intended a separate endow-
ment for the Catholic Church.— (Hear, hear.) But he
never intended, as he (Sir Robert Peel) believed, that
• any portion of the temporalities of the Irish Protestant
' Church should be appropriated to that purpose. He
held that engagements were made both at the period of
. thermion, and in 1839, that the Protestant Church should
be maintained in its integrity. He, therefore, thought it
. most important that this should not be lost sight of in
. coming to a decision upon this question, because the con-
fidence of the people in the good faith of Parliament and
. - public engagements was involved in the result.—(Hear,
beer.) But he defended the maintenance of the Es-
tablished Church on other grounds as well as on
, . the_ e policy of adhering to- public compacts.—(Hear.)
He would shortly state the ground upon which he gave
N, •I.:*khia..‘,7ls3;the maintenance of , the Established Church.
.„, ' 4 ‘ p titularly ,-"&"•:,-...--ir c. 2- n W. of the highest importance, looking at the
at the ecclesiastical, policy of the
~..:d.
lt v
,Y `,hot re should be on established religion in
;:11
~
..p ,
ist4ltctgre tilted liiiia6d..in, that is, a form of the
0,.;A: 0_ ••- lll43CltedlYi and incorporated with the
i.• -' - --i,-'•,' A-4
- . -!._'• 4 -..e''
isl a si