The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-18 00:00:00

GRANT TO MAYNOI/TH.

The great question raised by the Maynooth Bill is
really this—How is the government of Ireland to be
carried on? This is the question which every man who
pretends to statesmanship must answer clearly to his
own mind, before he can say " ay" or " no" to the Go-
vernment proposition. Is the government of Ireland to
be maintained by force, or by gaining the good will of
her people? Looking to the safety and integrity of the
empire, this is the great and urgent question of the
present time. The: repeal of the union may be impos-
sible, but war with America or with France is not im-
possible, and in either case a union supported by Eng-
lish troops would add at least as much to our anxieties
as to our strength. The main argument for the May-
nooth Bill, then, is, that it is a measure of conciliation.
It will confer solid benefits on the religious instructors
to whom the Irish people are attached, and, however it
may be used by the leaders of agitation, it will be re-
ceived by all men of common sense as an evidence of the
friendly disposition of an imperial Parliament. We
have no doubt, indeed, that many of the most ardent
opponents of the union secretly dread the success of the
measure, on account of its tendency to allay the fervour
of the popular hostility to England. By whom, then, is
the Bill opposed? By two parties who, on all other
questions, religious and political, and even in the reasons
of their opposition to this measure, are as much opposed
to each other as light and darkness. Of one of these
parties we would always speak with the respect which
is due to honesty and consistency. Protestant Dissenters,
who, on the ground of the voluntary principle, oppose
the Maynooth grant, are open to no imputation, except
one, and that is, that they are suffering themselves to be
egregiously duped by the more powerful party, from
whose intolerant and exclusive principles they themselves
have long suffered. The voluntary principle is in itself
free from every taint of injustice, and, whatever may be
thought of its practical effects, it must be admitted to be
a grand conception. It arises in religious minds from
zeal for the purity of the Christian faith, and it implies
an entire reliance on the power of that faith to maintain
its hold upon society without legal institutions. Its ad-
vocates, too, may plead that it would furnish one mode
of removing the difficulties of government in Ireland.
They say, " Leave the education of Irish priests to be
supported by those who want their services. Withdraw
the Maynooth grant altogether—but withdraw also the
endowments of the Protestant and Presbyterian
Churches. Sweep away every vestige of the legal
establishment of religion now existing in Ireland. Let
the whole of its Church property, the Presbyterian
regium donum, and the paltry Maynooth grant, be applied
to general education, or to some other purpose of general
utility. Place the ministers of all sects on the equal
footing of dependence on the contributions of their
flocks, and leave Protestantism to contend with Popery,
by its own intrinsic strength alone." This is, at least, a
clear and consistent answer to the question, "How is
Ireland to be governed?" The scheme, too, is precisely
that which would be most welcome to the Irish Catholics.
They would admit its perfect justice, and close with the
proposition at once. Whatever might be its effects upon
the character of religious teaching, it would undoubtedly
remove that which supplies the chief fuel to popular dis-
content. But the reasons for insisting on the voluntary
principle in reference to Ireland derive all their force
from the assumption that it can be applied there in its
integrity. 'to enforce it upon the Church of the ma-
jority, and not upon the Church of the minority, is both
unreasonable and flagrantly unjust; and it cannot be re-
garded by the Irish in any other light than as an injury.
The Irish Catholics are very well disposed to the volun-
tary principle; but if they find its English advocates em-
ploy it to defeat a Maynooth grant, while they are unable
to disturb the rich establishment of the Protestant mi-
nority, they will hardly give those advocates credit for
the friendly feeling and love of equal justice which they
profess. We cannot but think, therefore, that Pro.
testant Dissenters, who upon this ground are joining in
the present No-Popery agitation of Tories and High-
Churchmen, should consider well what is likely to be the
result of their efforts, and whether, if successful, they
will not contribute to the triumph of the greatest ene-
mies of religious liberty. Let it not be forgotten that a
Whig Government tried, not to abolish, but to reduce
within moderate limits the Irish Protestant establish-
ment, and failed in that attempt for want of popular
support. The history of the appropriation clause does
not furnish much ground for expecting that Protestantism
in Ireland can be made dependent on the voluntary sys-
tem. Is it wise, then, that Liberal Dissenters should
now aid the supporters of Protestant ascendancy in that
country, in withholding from Roman Catholics a slight
but welcome alleviation of the injustice which they sus-
tain? Under the circumstance of the case, neutrality
would be wise and becoming. If they ever become
strong enough to enforce their principle, let them get
rid of Maynooth grant and Protestant establishment to-
gether ; but in the mean time let them not lend the
strength and moral influence of that principle to the
achievement of a most sectarian triumph for its greatest
foes. It is obvious that the defeat of the May-
nooth grant,- if it should be defeated, will not be a
triumph of the voluntary principle. It will be a
triumph of No-Popery passions and prejudices. The
victory may be won by the junction of two parties,
but the stronger of the t'vo will absorb the fruits of
the conquest. When Liberal Dissenters find themselves
following Sir Robert Inglis and Mr. Piumptre, and ad-
ding their voices to aNo Popery war-cry raised by
clergymen of the Establishment, they ought surely to
have some misgivings as to the course which they are
taking. It may be true that z4ir Robert Inglis and his
friends are using suicidal arguments ; it may be true
that, in declaring it wrong to be obliged to pay for the
inculcation of doetrines from which we dissent, those
persons acknowledge a principle fatal to all State endow-
ments ; but after such arguments have served their tem-
porary purpose, of what value will they be ? Are they
not evidently taken up for the occasion, and will they
not be thrown aside with the saole discreditable facility?
What if Dissenters, attracted by the voluntary principle
arguments of Sir Robert Inglis, should first enable him
to defeat the Maynooth grant, and then beg the very
small favour that he would embody his new views in a
Bill for the abolition of church-rates, would not the High
Church leader smile at their simplicity ? The present
agitation is, we repeat, a No-Popery agitation. No-
Popery is the burden of the speeches by which it is
carried on, and even some advocates of the voluntary
principle are so far carried away by religious excitement,
as to mix up that principle with appeals to sectarian and
unsocial feelings. We cannot but think that the excite-
ment of a No-Popery cry, however honestly engaged in,
involves at the present time a peculiarly deep respon-
sibility. Considering the difficulties of the question
with which we started—the question of how Ireland is
to be governed--it is a course fraught with peril to
develop to the utmost possible extent the religious an
tagonisea between the two countries. When the religious
feelings, potent as they are, become blended with party
movements and popular agitation, they easily acquire a
fierce and fanatical character. What will be the pros-
pects of the empire—of the union—of religious liberty
—of social tranquillity, if Protestantism in England and
Catholicism in Ireland are excited by all imaginable
stimulants to mutual and deadly hostility? Men may
persuade themselves that they always distinguish
between the belief and the believers, and that when,
with passionate fervour, and in the presence of excited
multitudes, they denounce doctrines as false and immoral,
they do not give admission to a shade of hostile feel-
ing towards those by whom the doctrines are held. We
do not know how far this blending of the fierceness
of zeal and the mildness of charity can take place
in our frail human nature, but it will hardly be denied
that the hot No-Popery invectives, in which members of
the Tory party are and have been so much accus-
tomed to indulge, do produce irritation and bad
feeling in Ireland. If the tone of Exeter-hall should
unfortunately become so prevalent as to appear the
tone of the English people, and to govern the deci-
sion of the House of Commons, we really de not know by
what arguments the connexion between the two countries
is to be maintained. By " shrapnell and grape-shot"
the thing may, no doubt, be done; but it will not be much
to the honour of our Christianity if we should ever have
to think of such means.—Chronicle.