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

eighty-one cases of pluralities, and the 109 cases of
non-residences are in course of reduction, and that in
a very few years there would be no case either of plu-
rality or non-residence. I do not think I could make
a larger admission than this. Putting the case in that
shape, I still say that the Church of Ireland is an
anomaly and a misfortune to that country, and re-
quires the most serious attention of this House. But
the case of the Church of Ireland, as a cause of com-
plaint, is a very short one. It is, that here are
800,000, more or legs, to go to the extreme, say
850,000, the only part of a population of 8,000,000,
who are cared for by the State, and the only persons
who are in enjoyment of 650,000/. a year, which is
given to them for the support of their Establishment.
That appears to me to be a case to which there is no
parallel in any other country in Europe.—(Cheers.)
That is the plain and obvious cause of the complaint
made by the people of Ireland, and anywhere else
it would be called an oppressive and intolerable
grievance. The Right lion. Gentleman, an Irish
Member, in stating the case of the Church of Ireland,
altogether omits this question. He entirely forgets
that there do exist six and a half millions of Roman
Catholics ; and he considers them as no part and
pa; eel of our constitution, when the question of the
Church of Ireland is before us. I believe there is no
such case at present existing in Europe of a church
of this kinrl ; I believe that the only parallel to it
to be found in history in the state of the
Episcopal Church in Scotland during the
reign of the Stuarts, and when that coun-
try was convulsed with insurrection, and was dis-
turbed and oppressed by tyranny and by wrong. The
same uneasiness existed, the symptoms being different
only because the present age is different from the
seventeenth century. The same symptoms of a dis-
position to monopoly, and to inflict a religion upon
the people, existed with respect to Ireland, as formerly
existed in Scotland ; and I cannot but believe that
the same remedy will be required before we can ex-
pect peace or tranquillity there.—(Cheers.) I will
now take the objections which have been urged
against our entering upon the conslderation of
this question in a Committee of the whole House.
The Noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland,
says there is the article of union ! The Right Hon.
Baronet, the Secretary of State, urges that ground
not in the very temperate manner in which it was
treated by the Right Hon. Gentleman, the First Lord
of the Treasury. He advances that argument in a
manner such as I have never heard before. He puts
it in this way, and says, the words being the same
with respect to Ireland in the treaty of union, that
they are with respect to Scotland, then you are
obliged and bound to maintain in effect and inviolate
the Church of Ireland in its property, as it existed
at the time of the union. Why, I must say that I
was astonished when I heard that statement
fall from the Right lion. Gentleman, because
the Right lion. Gentleman himself was a party to a
Bill which took away a considerable portion of the
property of that Church.—(Hear, hear.) The Right
lion. Gentleman supported a Bill which took away
property to the amount of, I should say, nearly,
if not more than, 300,000/. a year from the Irish
Church. It is quite true that those revenues were
not to be devoted to Catholic purposes; but they had
been devoted to no ecclesiasti sal purposes, having
been applied to the secular purpose of swelling the,
rent-rolls of the owners of land. But I say that the
Right Honourable Gentleman was a party to
a Bill that was brought in either by Lord Althorp,
or the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley,) with
respect to the temporalities of the Church of Ireland,
IVere there no objections stated then ? Yes, I will give
you the objections al they were stated by two
very high outhorities. The first authority I will quote
is that of Mr. Lefrey, now Baron Lefroy, who pos-
sesses very high legal recommendations, and a very
extensive knowledge of law, and who had been re-
'commended by her Majesty's Ministers to the high
situation of filling one of the judicial benches in Ire-
land. Now, what said he to the Bill to which the
Right Honourable Gentleman was a party.
Mr. Baron Lefroy, in speaking of the Pro-
testants of Ireland said, "much dissatisfaction
and discontent exists among them with re-
spect to opposing this measure, which I think they
will consider as violating the Legislative union.
They consider that this measure not only violates the
Coronation oath, but also directly violates that Act of
the Legislature on which the union of the two coun-
tries was originally established. The Protestants of
Ireland, who had been hitherto such firm supporters
of that union, will now be ready to join with those
who cry for its repeal." Mr Baron Lefroy as strongly
stated his objections to that Bill as the Right Hon.
Gentleman had stated his objections to this Bill. His
ground was a very firm ground, according to the
Right Honourable Gentleman's present statement.
There was still a higher authority who made objec-
tions to that Bill—l mean the Archbishop of Canter-
bury. When I quote the words of the Archbishop of
Canterbury, I quote the words of a prelate who is
not accustomed to deal in declamation, or use terms of
exaggeration, with respect to any measure which he
may think it his duty to oppose, but one who states
temperately and firmly what he thinks, lie stated
his objections to the measure to which the Right
Hon. Gentleman was a party :—" He should object
to this Bill, betake the principle of the reform it
contained was only of a subordinate ,kind—that the
conciliation contemplated would fail in its object, be-
cause it went to apply the property of the Church to
the purposes for which it was not intended. He ob-
jected to it because it gave a triumph to the Catholics
over the Protestants, which would not tend to the
harmony of that country. He objected, to it because it
was the most sweeping measure ever applied to the
Church, and disposed of the property of the Church
to those who had no right to it whatever;" and he
stated that he feared the Bill would be taken as a
precedent. These were the objections which the
Archbishop of Canterbury stated to the Bill to which
the Right Hon. Gentleman was a supporter—objec-
tions as strong as any that he can apply to the mo-
tion of my lion. Friend. The Archbishop of
Canterbury feared that it would be taken as a
precedent. Certainly, if it had not been intended to
farm a precedent, I should not have supported that
Bill, because, although I considered that it would be
a useful measure, I felt that there were other reforms
that would subsequently be required. If this be the
case, let not the House be frightened by the denun-
ciations of the Right Hon. Baronet. Let them not
take alarm at the statement that the Act of Union
will be violated. The Right lion. Gentleman, the
Member for the University of Dublin, at the time
the Bill was before the House, said, that if it had been
proposed at the time of the union, one half of the
benefices in Ireland would have been abolished. lie
now speaks of that measure as a measure which was
brought forward by the friends of the Church, and
says, having done so much in the way of reform, I
hope vou will not now listen to the enemies of the
Church. It is very consoling now to find that such
an appeal is treated with so much respect by the
Right Hon;. Gentleman. During the time I have
sat in this House I have heard measures denounced
as being calculated to destroy the Constitution
two or three times over, and two or three
years afterwards, when those prophecies were
fbund to be groundless, I have heard
some person interpose, and beg that we _
to
would
not destroy the Constitution, which he proved be
so flourishing and so healthy.—(Hear.) I therefore
apprehend that if my Hon. Friend be so fortunate as
(tiou
epsetrisounade ,
aotdh e
shouldl lo us e t
adopt
a into
measure Committee
o
tis
accordance
withillis views, in the course of a few years we should
have the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite saying, do
not make any further innovations in the Church; the
last measure was a very wholesome and friendly one,
and was adopted on the very amicable suggestion of
the Honourable Member for Sheffield ; don't
trust to any hand less friendly to the Church.
The statement made by the Right Hon. Gentleman
was, that there should be endowments for the Roman
Catholics; that might be all very well, but there waa
great objection to it. He would now proceed to the
question whether the Protestant Church of Ireland
answered so completely the purposes for which it was
designed, as to render it necessary not to interfere
with it. What was the ground on which the Esta-
blished Church rested ? Was it not to give the
means of religious instruction to the people? The
great question was, did the Church of Ire-
land answer the purposes of a great State ?
He thought it had been clearly shown that it
did not. If they would cut. down the Protestant Esta-
blishment to something like what was wanted by the
people, they would do something. In Ireland not an
eighth or ninth of the people were connected with the
Establishment. The Right Hon. Gentleman, the
Secretaryplea.esodf
toStsaatey
tfboratlibee
nHomelotion
ofDetpbaerrioeon.tilehmad
been .
ber for Sheffield with respect to the Church waso not
so explicit as usual ; and added to that, it was tbe
remembered that the party opposed to the mea-
suretien their
views.
Ile Friend,
nI et l)eso wererN Russell)derJyl.l:itffipc aurl
questionis
in their minutest particulars
.h.
ttifu(b)lreagrllgiyien'iluatnoliitd(slah
mg
dd,estpoacilri discuss sfsratmheiantg meritstsbo me
eotf t
properthe
the. Memdbheer fs(i
time, an
Opposi
'irouSldhenflolet
non side of the House.
Fe.neral. concurrence and
theth
su Right Hon. Gentleman
al(itic)ohnretiei groslii.l)t
that, the
nbßaaetus:tt did
with a
(Sir James Graham) think it necessary that all who
voted for the motion then before the House must
baaaauggrhe
teedr
from oi some
Sir James specifici s
Graham.)
plan before doing
The
Right—
lion. Baronet seemed amused with what he said ; and
vet. he and the Right lion. Gentleman had before
that day contended in a cause in which persons of
various views and opinions supported them, and by
so contending together, succeeded in carrying the
measure called the Reform Bill.—(Loud cheers.)
Some Hon. Members on the occasion he alluded to,
said, with Lord Carnarvon, it was best to go for
a moderate and graduated portion of reformotbeill