The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-24 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF C051,110.N5, April 23.
MAYNOOTH-APPROPIZIATION OF THE IRISH
ECCLESIASTICAL REVENUES.

Mr. WARD (in con intuition from our Third Edi
Lion of last night) proceeded to say—Why the ar
guments in the pamphlet must be as distasteful to the
Hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. C. Bruce) as to the
Catholics of Ireland. It went to prove that there was
but one true church, and that church was the Protestant
Church. Really, if:that argument were to pass current
in that House, he (Mr. Ward) could only say that Mr.
Percival's ghost, which the Hon. Member for Shrews-
bury had invoked, was a much more formidable person.
age than Mr. Percival himself. In 1807 Mr. Percival
had said that it was vain to expect an established church
to stand, if the principles upon which that establish.
ment rested were cut from under it. But in the very
same extract Mr. Percival was represented to admit that
the " sad and anomalous" state of Ireland gave rise to
very grave considerations.—(Hear.) And the author of
the pamphlet went on to quote from the notes of his
father, in which he admitted that, although he con-
sidered numbers gave no right to education at the ex-
pense of the State, policy might. (The Hon. Member
quoted the notes at some length on this point.) Now, he
asked, what was the position of affairs after the lapse of
forty years? Catholic Emancipation had been granted,
and did not every one who was opposed to his (Mr.
Ward's) views feel convinced that what they refused
long ago would have satisfied them, and that moderate
concessions would have prevented them from hearing
what they now called exorbitant demands? The Noble
Lord the Member for Dorsetshire had made the most
statesmanlike speech of any one on his side of the
House, and it was remarkable for nothing so much as for
the largeness of its admissions. The Noble Lord said
the measure was great fir good or for evil, and that if it
were pasted into a law it would at some future time be
subject to reconstruction. The adoption then of his
(Mr. Ward's) motion would prevent that future recon-
struction which the Noble Lord dreaded, for it would
give them an opportunity of dealing with the Established
Church of Ireland which there had not been for forty
years; and he appealed to those who had for forty years
filled the seats of the Government in that House whether
they had m t felt the Established Church of Ireland
hanging like a mill-store round their necks. (The Hon.
Member then proceeded to read passages from the
pamphlet, which referred to the strong expression of
feeling which had reached the House fi one out cf doors.)
Were those feelings out of doors worthy of the respect
of that 1-louse? The Hon. Baronet opposite, the Member
for the University of Oxford (Sir R. Inglis) told them
the other night that there was not a harsh word con-
tained in the petitions presented to that House ; that
there was not a word in them which could not be justi-
fied from the Homilies, Liturgies, and Articles of the
Church of England. He did not think that was a very
wise admission ; but if it were the fact, it could only be
because the Liturgy of the Church of England contained
terms so harsh, that the greatest dealer in vituperation
Might be satisfied with them. His Hon. Friend the
Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) had asked
whether they. were not prepared to show due deference
to those petitioners tinder hose petitions the table
of that House groaned. The Hon. Gentleman was right
in one thing—he was right in defending the clergy
of the three denominations, as they were called, fir they
were the persons whose views were the soundest, and
whose language had been the most moderate. But was
that the case with other petitioners ? In a petition
presented by the Noble Lord the Member for Liver-
pool, the petitioners stated that this measure was emi-
nently calculated to bring down the judgment of God on
a Protestant country. There was a petition from
Whitby which made use of the harshest terms with re-
gard to Maynooth, which they considered was especially
detrimental to the people of Ireland. There was also a
petition from Lancaster, presented by the Chairman of
their Committees (Mr. Greene), which stated that no
concessions which could be made would satisfy the
Roman Catholics of Ireland. There was also a petition
presented by the Hoe. Member tJr Kent, which stated
that the doctrines of the Church of Rome were unsocial,
unchristian, and idolatrous, and inconsistent, and irre-
concilable with the genuine doctrines of the Gospel.
There was also a petition from Elfin which he pre-
sented himself, and which stated that the petitioners re-
garded as high treason against heaven, to apply the
revenues of a Protestant country to the education of
a Popish priesthood.—(hear, hear.) Now, be would
ask, in what other country in the world would it be
possible to find one half of the population of a country
applying such language to the other half, because they
were of a different opinion? If they saw such divisions
elsewhere, should they not at once conclude that they
could have but the same result which it was seen they
had in Switzerland. Ile could only say, if the un-
charitable language he had quoted, came recommended
by the sanction of the liturgy, the homilies, and the ar-
ticles of the Protestant Church, that Church was
anything but a blessing to the country over which
it ruled.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") He
would give his Hon. Friend the Member for Dun-
garvon some specimens of the sort of eloquence, and of
some of the notions which were most rife at these meet-
ings, and for these they must go to the Evangelical
clergymen, and not to the Dissenters, for the peculiar
expressions by which the feelings of the party were
evinced. At these saturnalia—for he could call them
nothing else—an lion. Member of that House had re-
ferred to arr. M'Neile, of Liverpool, as a highly respect-
able sample of Christian clergymen ; and yet Mr.
M'Neile, in a speech the other day to the Operative
Conservatives of that town, had stated that if they sanc-
tioned the additional grant to Maynooth, they might as
well found a college for theft or adultery, and in his
opinion the difference between the ministers of the
Roman Catholic Church and the Jesuits was nothing
more or less than the difference between a highwayman
and a pickpocket. And yet the Right Hon. Gentleman
the Member for Perthshire (Mr. F. Maule) had moved
the thanks of the meeting last night at Exeter
Hall. lie had been too wise to hamper him-
self with any resolution which involved a principle,
yet, by giving his silent assent to those which had been
passed, he had become a party to all which had trans-
pired. At that meeting, it had been unblushingly
stated that this grant to Maynooth was only putting an
additional weapon into the hands of the Popish priests,
and they objected to it under the supposition, as they
stated, that the increase of knowledge would only tend
to made bad men worse.—(Great lau;hter.) The mi-
nister of St. Mary's Chapel, Reading, had stated that
either Sir Robert Peel had never read his Bible, or if he
had read it, he did not understand it ; or if he bad un-
derstood it, he did not believe it.—(Laughter.) Such
were some of the statements by which these Hon. Gen-
tlemen were in the habit of expressing their opinions on
their Christian fellow-subjects. At a meeting the other
day at Hertford, which had been attended by the Rev.
Mr. Bickerstaff, Mr. Trolling, and others, Mr. Bicker-
staff had not been ashamed to assert the exploded doc-
trine that Roman Catholics kept no faith with heretics,
and stated that there was nothing which in any way
justified this fraternization with the Roman Catholics in
God's word. Ile did not hesitate to compare this fifty
years' grant to the College of Maynooth to Herod's
oath, and as that oath led to murder, and there was a
prior command in the Scriptures which prohibited mur-
der, so he should say that it' there was a contract with
Maynooth, that contract ought to be broken inasmuch
as the principles taught were equally prohibited by the
same authority. At that meeting it had been stated that
Sir Robert Peel had been met by a beguiling harlot, who,
with her soft words and smooth speeches, had forced
him to abandon all his principles—(Laughter)—and abide
in
as tabernacles of
sbythe pr
sentiments
phil ee (fm)faoe neul
ts—. b
such
elnandat
tatshos
etdbshey
eensocu—n
persons
languagecseenatas false,
these—sentiments
suchaelns
endea-
voured
e s tabl e
detestable, languageandwhblicahm
to excite hostility and continued dissensions.
And yet it was at this very meeting that a
Member of that House took the chair.—(Hear.) A
Member whose private character was in the highest
degree **Ole, but who, like others who were Members

----
of that House, refrained from expressing their op &In;
where they were to be met and refuted, but who, if illec
did not themselves speak at these meetings, gave a
sanction, which, front men of high standing, was of gre°
Irnp6rtance, by not expressing their dissent ; and thus
attempt was made to excite ill feeling, and undo all the
good that Lad been effected in the public mind. BY PI
grant of the last fifty years to Maynooth, mcn of tall
had lent themselves to it. Persons cf character In°
the most ekaggerated statements when heated by 10,14,1
disputes. lie would read fur the House the speech ur !`""
Hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyne,
eppositroo
to the Bill. In that House the Hon. Member wad') of
speech, certainly opposcd to the grant, but
so. lukewarm, mild, and inoffensive a charactrr,
s.ort
that one would be inclined to ioubt the I°‘
verity of his dissent, but that Honourable Mean
delivered a speech at Exeter-hall which was calculate,
to arouse and excite the feelings of the entire POP°!
—that speech Iva% printed by the Anti-Maynooth Ass,l
elation, and published in a pamphlet of Mr. Lord's, filla
in the Churchman's Monthin Review—and which 13,a
been commented upon and einoted as a text of infallible
authority. If the poor people out of doors knew fiord
Mcinben; as %veil as they knew one another they v)„l3a4
not put so much trust in them.—(Hear, hear.) mthe
allowance ought to be made for the period, 1104,4$
m atospLere in which these speeches were delivered; the
speech was made in 1636; it was published in t

Chris chman's Review
Mr. Ci )I.QUIIOUN—It was not published by toe•
Nlr. WARD—That may be. That speech ws' Ptr,
fished by Mr. Lord, and contained the grossest per
won of facts regarding Ire!and that he had ever per°';os
It stated that at the moment when illaynooth
fe!unded, and when Dr. Reilly and Dr. Troy were •ileghe
tinting with Mr. Pitt on that subject, they were in nth
closest connexion with Wolfe Tone, and labouring °I! 0
him to revolutionise Ire bend, and to sever the con tad
between Ireland and England. It further stn ea
that the Roman Catholic bishops had never it°lo3o
loyally except when they were engaged in s° os
treacherous design—some secret treason which wss It/he
ripe for execution. There was no question as to
reception which ought to be given to a prop,;sition s" °h is
testalle. It ought to he met with the scorn willl
merited—every lover of his countr—every person cP.:;
ing the name of patriot, he would lay down his life
thous
Mr. and lives if he N—
had them-- d of
COLQUEIOUI did not say a single wet'

this.
Mr. WARD—Mr. Lord is answerable for this Percear
saw, ; hut as to the statements regarding the Itee3,l,
Catholic bishops, he would ask the Right Hon. Gn—f
man at the heal of the Government. the Chancellorle
the Exchequer, or any authority on that side ofrr;l2
House who was decently conversant with .01
affairs, whether Dr. Troy was not one ear
the most devoted friends that England ...-
had ?—(Hear, hear.) And as to the charge of 11.;
hellion, it was well known that in 1793 all the Ct'tll,4%l
clergy of Ireland were in a state of terror lest the re-'
eiplcs of the French Revolution should take root theate.
Many of them had bet n expelled from France with
en
greatest indignity, and the chief exertions of thefernies
were to prevent the taint ef the revolutionary Prieei;:elf
from spreading in Ireland. and out of the whole ho
of the Catholic clergy of Ireland there was not one I'o
eined in the rebellion of 1798. The rebellion *II
created in the north by the Presbyterians, and 11,°!,,, to
the Catholics, and the people in the south were driv;eot.
insurrection by the tyranny of the Govertlieg
This sort of appeal to the popular
ought nut to be made by men of Parliatnenao,
standing in this ccuntry, and when speeches of üb-ne°o
Members were quoted, they were not to be relied (ht
as indisputable facts. If there was any breach of fi •
was certainly on the side of England ; because it saecer
notori,ets fact that the Union could never have been
tied if the Catholics had not been induced to co-er rot"
with the Government and the Protestants. Therets to
a large body of evidence and many historical f0,e400
prove that prior to the fulfilment of Mr. Pitts Pflehied
it was intended that the church property of ULM
should be alienated. Evidence of this sort was:Pelf
found in the "Life of Lord Eldon," and he could to see
thinking that the nature of this evidence ought tem-ght
prevented the executors from publishing it. He t"-11-001
there were things in Lord Eldon's life which oughVeige
to have been laid before the world within twentY,l
after they occurred. It was stated in that work t",:4eo
sole and only obstacles to the fulfilment of these PIO,
we s the insanity of the King. la read
there was an anti- Catholic spirit. Let any al,tha the
the debates of that period and he would fina the
most perfect unanimity existed in Parliament leioot
general question and it was proposed that the Cat h,.° g- refit
Ireland should be emancipated and merged into tperieto
body of the Protestant constituency. He then wi1,,1.(0
many affecting details on the same subject. Pvi". the
Ward) should like to know whether the Queen ikon°
Emancipation Act did not hold possession of he!,,-ed 1)1
by a firmer tenure than did the King who reigiang
coin
the rigour of the penal laws? Up to 1810 the opeee'
illness was the sole bar to the granting of theeArcap°
sions to the Roman Catholics. After that s,tiellths
the dissolution of the Ministry. Thus it wee l'fie other
benefits promised by England were one siteer, file
lost, and now when they were coming to somettunb
ears gib
same policy which had actuated them fertY yes dies
they were thwarted in their attempts by the Pr Eno
eiuead
engendered in the hearts of the Protestants of eslo
and Scotland, by the wcrks of Protestant Vriesef9
professed not the Toryism of his Hon. Friend the 'OO
her for Oxford, but a principle peculiarly their
had spoken of the Hon. Baronet, who stated thal'etter
was a religious question. Nothing could be a, gryoeit
absurdity. The interest of the people ever was
to their own security, to have tranquillity at hell 3-1, ilaOs
power abroad; instead of that, they seemed to tbinar• 0.)
the whole empire was made for the Church.--("l,,ebe'
There were other things to which they should boe'reat
fore they dealt with the measure which the Gorern-000'
proposed. It was opposed by a great class of their notof
trynien, who conceived it to be a direct infringetaehog
their rights, and he (Mr. Ward) did not know) all the
more dangerous than to connect the conscience wtit be
pocket. That was what he wished to avoid, hle IS
would say that there were a large body of the Pee.,Ppaid
this country and Scotland who told them that thoo
lard
their own clergy, and that it would be an act Of grew of
justice, for the sake of tranquillising another rrtiothof
the empire, to tax them for the support oflTd not
Church to which they did not belong* con tber•
gainsay that argument—he could not .deny tht be
was a great deal of force and reason in it,:;;;IlisOSI
found that the Presbyterians, Orthodox, and ya"--1.
the Independents and the Wesleyan Methodistsflpsrt-
-11,248 churches, resting entirely on voluntary,Vl ttre
The Independents had twelve colleges, beside
of the Wesleyans, which were supported 9:,,,ed0.
animal expense of twenty-four thousand ~19i thee
There could be no doubt, in acting properly, t"8
ought to proceed upon the principle of restitutionizigbt
had heard, the other night, the speech of the We
Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the . Ilse"
Department, and he could only regret its conolusli° ll
(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman then went A con:
long disquisition on the grievances of Ireland, 9113
Rotdd
chided by expressing a hope that these wrong,.
sro long be redressed. Ile believed, from 5r13,j500
taken place, that it was clearly shown that 101 sO'$O'
weakness was Ireland's strength. The Rig",:ositisn
Gentleman oppesite had the advantage of an oPr- Isn'
which would assist him in carrying out his presentiol;
—(Hear, hear.) They were ready to support baleof?
carrying out even a more comprehensive planOr
—and, therefore, he (Mr. Ward) called upon the rib°
Hon. Baronet to reconcile his differences with thes,°.elitit
supported him on this great question, and to coati'
the motion which he (Mr. Ward) now made. .40%
Captain BERKELEY had great pleasure in se'°.,e-ight
the motion. He had voted fur the measure of the Pilot
Hon. Baronet., but he had also voted (ever since 11.eciple
the honour of a seat in Parliament) for the Preen)
which was involved in the present motion.--nt,sri
It would not bo consistent with his past Parliatne-00,
conduct, if ho did not support the present 113°-jiillg
whether or not he was allowed the honour of selg3}
it. lie had voted for the appropriation clause In
and he thought that the mode proposed by tes
„11 bla
Friend the Member for Sheffield was the most reastd,.'
and perfect in which the grant could be stllteciro_Aee
(Hear, hear.) The Irish church was the great gre-aow''',
of Ireland. It had been declared such by all best
friends of Ireland for the last century, and the:
friends of the Protestant religion had concurreuierseo,
opinion. The Honourable Member then re aibiee
to the address of ten thousand persons, asse"-eon:
at Mallow, to this Marquis of Normanhl'f hie
gratulating that nobleman upon the results °
government of the country as Lord-Lieutcnant•ect, to
asked them, how could Gentlemen opposite e%P,,,,ntrt,
conciliate Ireland when they had deprived that i.esTelet`
of so good- a Governor ?—(Hear, hear.) Nos
"Pireett
that, in supporting the present motion, he WM °AOC--
mg the best interests of the country, and of the •."--
to which he belonged. to
Os,
Sir THOS. FREMANTLE said that in objecting dor
amendment, he felt called upon to respect the consistel
the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, wile haet
oot• ;
hered to his own views upon this question, throngh g goo
port and through evil report.—(Hear, hear.) rrhi.ee Frio:
Member had lost no opportunity of putting forward t"e,b9
ciple embodied in the present motion—(Loud cheers.„'neirle
the present occasion was most inopportune. The P"--50s11
was too important to be discussed upon the question of
obt)
grant of 26,0001.—(Cries of " Hear, hear," and "fib'
sake
Many Gentlemen who were opposed to the grant nlibf fur
this opportunity of voting with the Hon. Membe-ayinS
the purpose of defeating the Government. But+ in surteol,
this, he (Sir T. Fremantle) was bound to admit the:d 00:
and consideration with which the Hon. Gentleman ere sse
since the debate was opened.—(Hear, hear.) !ilea toe' '
other inconveniences connected with the Hon. °en" llotlief
motion—for instance, if this motion were carried, sios
Committee would be necessary to vote the particular ;34 the
funds out of which the grant should be supplied. In., 01
daa
Honourable Gentleman defeated the Ministry by Pr°r:, 01.74 i
this principle. In 1835 the Ministry wer-d r
defeated upon it. ( Hear, hear.) In 106 af ,ppts
the measures, which included the principle ot 000
priation, were rejected. But in 1638, an ant'lspPr°'
o r for
Bill was obliged to be carried, by the abandournel4
priation. He wouW therefore put it to the Han. Di::: ellieti
Sheffield, whether he would hazard the overthrow e'',:ioo_.,"4
sure now before the House, by pressing again the ti inters
appropriation, which had hitherto been fatal to the-
to measures ?—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentlereee ill
proceeded to quote from a speech made by Lord Al°„roFte-is6,,°°
opposition to the appropriation principle. The aPPr.os-'
principle did not succeed in 1838, and it could be g
much better grounds now. He quoted this inconos' resee
show that the same arguments would do for them at theSe
moment. Nothing could be more dangerous to this inefise'lele Or,
to tack the appropriation principle to it. Thep rie-r`operw
volved the appropriation of the whole of the Church Pot Olt
in Ireland ; and by taking 26,0001. out of it, for thatt then
other purpose, they would violate their principles, OA, el%
would be left to their future consideration how 0,,07,,,00
they should take.—(Hear, hear.) He would C&"