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

T 1114.1 BUN,LONDON, THURSDAY MORNING, APRIL ,24, 1545.

he believed, With the wishes of a large number of .his
friends, and in perfect accordance with those principles
which, as a party, they had advocated for the last ten
years in that House, it became his duty to
place on record—not their hostility to the Govern-
ment plan, because in every measure of concession
of Roman Catholic rights—in every expression
of justice or of kindness which had fallen from either
side of the House towards those whom they called fellow-
countrymen and fellow-christians, they cordially
and entirely participated—but they refused as to
the mode in which the measure contemplated
for their benefit might be rendered one which would
give permanent satisfaction to Ireland ; and he must
beg to remind Hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House
that they had a double duty to perform on this
occasion— they had not only to look to the
natural desire of conciliating 'lreland and sooth-
ing and healing the wrongs which had been done
to that country for three centuries, but they must
also look to England—they must not do away with cne
injustice by committing another ; and they must be
aware of counterbalancing the good which they
all hoped to do to Ireland by sowing the seisis
of just discontent in this country.—(Hear, hear.)
He remembered, when the Noble Lord the Secretary for
the Colonies came forward in that House with what he
called a great measure for Catholic relief by taking off
the vestry cess in Ireland, that Noble Lord designated
the vestry cess as a galling blister to the Catholics, but
he said that the Irish Church, which would
benefit most largely by this cause of discontent,
ought to bear the whole charge. He ;visited
to amend this Bill by the principle included
in his amendment, and not by any means to throw it
out ; and he had given some roof of his sincerity, by
submitting to the obloquy which he received by reeasiao
to concur in a movement, the object of -which was Co
throw out the Bill on the second reading. That
party bad, by the result of last week, proved
itself hostile to the Government measure. A Mem-
ber of Parliament had, in these times, quite enough
to do to answer charges against him founded upon
truth, without submitting to misrepresentation. He had
been accused, by implication, of having betrayed a cause
in which he never embarked. He had had a long ac-
quaintance with the Hon. Gentleman, who had taken a
very active part on the Anti-Maynooth Committee, and
placed himself, at a very early period, in commuica-
tion with him (Mr. Ward)—in fact, as soon as
he understood the nature of his motion. lie
suggested various alterations in the form of the motion,
so as to make it more palatable to those who acted with
him ; but he (Mr. Ward) declined to accede to every
one of them, assuring him, at the same time, that the
motion he intended to move had no reference to religious
grounds. They wished that time might be given to the
country to express its opinions, but he told these gentle-
men that he entirely concurred in the opinion of the Right.
Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, and in that of
the Noble Lord the Member for the City of London, and
added that he would not give half an hour more than
the forms of the House absolutely required. [Here the
noise in the House became so great, and the bustle at
the bar so loud, that the Hon. Gentleman ceased until
the Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms cleared the bar, and order
was in some degree restored.] He proceeded to
say, that he said so because he considered,
with the gentlemen with whom he acted, that
during the time which had necessarily elapsed since
the introduction of the measure, the parties who opposed
the Bill had succeeded in lighting up a flame dangerous
and even discreditable to the country. How any body
after that could take into his head to write to the Times
to express the grief of the Anti-Maynooth Committee
which had expected that he would push on his motion,
but instead of doing so had withdrawn it, and thus
prevented the measure being defended by the com-
bined votes of " true Protestants," and some of
the adherents of the Whig party. He bed
the greatest respect for his Noble Friend
(Lord John Russell) but he feared that, if he
wanted a character, that Noble Lord would say that he
was not among the most obsequious. When he had
differed from that Noble Lord, he had taken his own
line, but on this questioii,bis views certainly concurred
with that of the Noble Lord, and with that
of every one of his supporters on his side of the house.
When these gentlemen told him that Protestantism was
going to ruin, he could not help thinking how miserable
and small this English Protestantism must be. With
their tnivcr-ities at Oxford and Cambridge. and with
all the revenues of the richest church in the world, and
a bench of bishops in the House of Lords to watch over its
interests, he could not see how they could jusiify coming
trembling and whining to that House for assistaree upon
the ground that the small sum of 26,000/., was about, to
be voted to the Catholics of Ireland. He dismissed this
part of the question at once, and he thought he bad got
rid of the charge of anything like bad faith. His prin-
ciples had been too lorg before the world to render it
likely that such a charge could be maintained or supported
Ile lied nos er taken the low tone that religious conces-
sion to Catholicism in Ireland was a. metier of grace cr
favour. With him it was a matter of right. Ile had
always considered that as the Catholics were the reajo-
rity in the sister country, they had just as
good a right to a Catholic Church establishment'
as they had to a Protestant
Presbyterian. Church in
Scotland. Their truth WAS not our truth, their church
was not our church, and they had just as ninth right to
resist Protestantism, as .England would have a
right to resist the introduction of Presbyterianism,
or Scotland to resiet the introduction of Episcopacy
into that country ; and it was now time for doing away
with the Established Church in Ireland, which only re-
mained as a monument of "England's conquest and Ire-
, land's disgrace. He entertained the warmest symoathy
with what the Hon. Member for Newark the other night
called "Indefinite Protestantism," and so he believed it
was called during the last hundred years by such men as
Swift, Burnett, and Wilbam 111. His own principles were
sanctioned by the leading dignitaries of the Irish
Church, and were clearly and exnlicitly Mid down in n
important work published by Archbishop Wheatley.
Those were his sentiments ; and though he could not
help honouring the name that first asserted the rights of
mind against the Papal power, lie could not less honour
the men who, in spite of revolution and of the change
which had taken place in the aspect of their creed,
still clove to the faith of their ancestors. It had
been told the House by the Honourable Member
for Elgin the other night, and he (Mr. Ward) could not
avoid referring to it, for he considered this but an ad-
journed debate, that the Catholics ought not to be admitted
to the same privileges with the professors of the
Reformed religion, and it was added that the
Duke of Wellington might say then, what the Duke
of Ormond said two hundred years ago, that he had
been acquainted with the Catholics fur twenty years,
and that in that period he found them destitute of truth
and unworthy of trust. It was time they dropped their
prejudices, for they made their treasures weak, and the
Legislature ridiculous. He said it was time to discon-
tinue this one-sided policy, but they should take care, in
altering their course, that they should at last adopt the
right course—that they should not again embark in
what would ultimately prove to be a ruinous course.
As to the fact that they had taken a new
course, he had never seen a point on which
such a mass of evidence had been brought to
bear in that House. They had first the Noble
Lord the Member for the City of London ; then they
had the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Devonpert ;
they had the Secretary fir the Home Department, end
they had the First Lord of the Treasury. The Right
Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department
had told them that this was the first of a series of
measures for the amelioration of her Majesty's Catholic
subjects in Ireland. The First Lord of the Treasury
had told the House that this measure was a Government
one, and by it the Government would stand or fall ; and.
the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, who ought to have been the most cautious,
proved chequer,.
-on that question the most incautious.
They might have occasion to admire the courage of the
'tight Hon. Gentleman, but they could not at all give credit
to his sagacity. He (Mr. Ward) would like to see what
they were likely to do. He appealed to the House, if.
they were not establishing hers a progressive prin-
ciple ? and if they took this step at all,
they must be prepared fur all that would fol-
low. The question was simply this. How they
could best settle the necessary and just cNims
of
Ireland, and how they could best reconcile the people of
S?otlancl and England to those principles which they
considered necessary :.nd kistht for that purpose. The
Government were about to. do that in a way which be
thought the most likely to prevent any Isgitimate-ehjec-
dons which might be urged by those parties. The ques-
tion involved some of the most important principLs
that Government could propose or Parliament sanction.
It involved a principle of endowment as cnntrachstie-
guished to the voluntary system—it inolved the
principle of endowment out of the general funds
of the country. As the particular funds which would
be properly applicable were under the authority of
Government otherwise applied—he would not say mis-
applied. As to those who objected to this measure, on
the voluntary principle, he might safely leave them
in the hands of his Honourable Friend the Member
for. the City of London, and the Noble Lord
the Member for Liverpool. They, at least, had nothing
offensive in their views ; they said that religion was
never so healthy, that the power of truth was never so.
great as when disconnected with the State. They
alleged nothing offensive to Catholic principles or
Catholic rights. He (Mr. Ward) admitted that
it was a great principle. it was his own prin-
ciple. some year. ago, when he brought forward
a motion with respect to the Irish Church.
Equality was to be attained in Ireland, but he had no
hope of obtaining that in the way they proposed. Was
he to go on from year to year without any attempt to do
away the anomaly of an endowment in Ireland which
placed the clergy of one-eighth of the population in the
possession of all the church property ? They provided
another one-eighth with a regium donum, and the re-
maining six-eighths had nothing. That appeared to him
to be sort b
ofe denied lop-sidede
dtbalitbtebrealeitoyln;ntaatrytheeysstaemme
badtimeit
would not not
ep-
re
et
pbeereend sufficientlyfor it
n Englandtr tried ; lreland e a
might
t
worse, as the professors of religion had
succeed not
probably
ba beenbly
on in England, who
would depend on the voluntary system for their sup
port, would be farther from degrading themselves
pandering to the passions of their flocks. What did y
ids It
by
in Ireland ? What did it do in the United State
He always turned with pleasure to the speech made bY
his Noble Friend the Member for the City of London,
on the debate for the motion which he (Mr. Ward)
brought forward last year, when he (Lord J. Russell)
dealt with the voluntary-principle in that highly philsophic
spirit, which was almost peculiar to himself in that House.
Here the Hon. Member road the passage from the
Speech to which he had referred, and which was
to the effect that in the United States there were
ministers of various religious sects who were sup-
ported by the voluntary principle ; yet even by

•
those men was the et eel, and unchrienee eed
system of slavery upheld ; and why 'wee t his? hi :use
they were dependent upon the popular voice for their
maintenance ; 'lnt this could not Le • the ease,
if they were placed in a position that would
make them independent of their flocks. Tht:
same speaker then went on to say, that it would be of
immense importance to the Roman Catholic clergy of
Ireland if they were placed in a position that would
put them beyond the reach of the influence
of popular passion ; and if the appointment
of those clergymen was entirely unshackled it
would be of great importance, for then they would be
in some measure independent." Now, he did me think
that their experience of Ireland, from last year, fully
bore out the fact that such an altered state of things
would be for the benefit of that country. What had taken
place in Ireland, in reference to the Bequest Act ?
The Most Rev. Dr. Murray, who had taken office
under that Bill, had been exposed to the most violent
hostility and assault for having done so; but he held his
ground until the storm had blown over, which would
have continued much longer than it did but for Mr.
O'Connell, who stopped it, seeing that it would
lead to no good to let it go on any longer.
But inlet ad of citing Pr. Murray. who held
a deservefly high character in public estimation. as en
instance, he would ask, why should even the most humbla
Roman Catholic clergyman he exposed to such
tribunel ? He now came to the motion of endow-
ment, which he looked upon as one of the greatest
importance. It was a question • which had
taken a fast hold of the minds of the people of
England, and also of the people of Scotland ; but in
England it had so perverted and warped the minds of
the people, that it made them insensible to the many
wrongs their laws had inflicted on Ireland.—(Hear.)
The Hon. Baronet admitted that he could not pretend
to govern Canada or Malta on the same terms that he
would undertake the government of Ireland to morrow.
They were, he said, bound by capitulation, and they
were bound by cempact, but they were bound by
something much higher, they were bound by
common sense, and common prudence, and
common justice. The Honourable Baronet knew
that a religious establishment was no part ef
Christianity—it was only a means of inculcating it. An
establishment depended upon its utility, and its utility
was bounded by its extent. The alliance between
the Church and State depended, as was said
by the Honourable Baronet, on its extent. How did
the Esta')lished Church in Ireland bear out this ? Was
the Church in Ireland in accordance with Hellam's
beautiful definition of a State Church, that it
ought to exist by the will of, and for the people ?
In some parts of Ireland the members of the
Established Church were but as one per cent. to the
whole population, and yet every attempt at
change every attempt to give a proximation
of justice for the present measure was not
intended for anything more than proximate justice—
every attempt of this sort was met by the Hon. Baronet
with an appeal to the principles of George the Third,
and Mr. Percival. He (Mr. Ward) had been favoured
with a pamphlet written by Mr. Percival's son, in which,
speaking of the Hon. Baronet, he said, " Sir R. H. leglis,
the man w hose public and private character most nearly re
sembles the character of that statesman whose prophetic
foresight these pages are intended to illustrate, and who
is occupied, like him, in endeavouring to save his Queen
and country from disgrace and danger." 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 re'ted were cut from under it. Bat 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
thrty years? Catholic Emancipation had been granted,
and did not every one who was opposed to his (Mr.
rd'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 Dorsetsbire had made the most
statesmanlike speech of any one on his side of the
Helve, end it was remarkable for nothing so much as for
the laraeness of its admissions, The Noble Lord said
the ere was great for geed or for (vil, Led that if it
were pas-,:ed 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
„rive them an opportunity of dealinc, with the Established,
Uhttreh of Ireland which there had not been for forty
years; and he appealed to those who had lea: forty pars
filled the seats of the Government in that House whether
they hd not felt the Established Church of Ireland
hanging Mae a mill-stone round their necks. (The lion.
Member then proceeded to read passages from the
pamphlet, which referred to the strong expr,wsion of
feeling which had reached the House from ont of doors.)
Were those feelings out of doors worthy of the respect
of that. -House? The Hon. Baronet opposite, the Member
for the University of Oxford (Sir H. lnglis)-told them
the other night that there was net a iiienh word con-
mined in the petitions presented to that. House ; that
there was not a word in them which could not be justi •
tied from the Homilies, Liturgies, and Articles of the
Church of England. He did not think that was a very •
wise admission ; hut if it, were the fact, it could only be
because the Liturgy of the Church of Eegland contained
terms so harsh, that the greatest dealer in vituperation
night be satisfied with them. His lion. Friend the
Member ibr Finsbury (Mr. T. Duneornbe) lied asked
whether they were not prepared to show due deference
to those petitioners under whose 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, for 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 fur 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 &so 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 Hon. Member for Kent, which stated
that the doctrines of the Church of Rome were unsocial,
unchristian, and idolatrous, and inconsistent, awl irre-
concilable with the genuine doctrines of the Gospel.
There was also a petition from Elgin 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, he would
aslc, in what other country in the world would it be
possible to find one half of the popu'ation 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. He could only say, if the un-
charitable language he had quoted, came ta.comniended
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.—(Loudcries- of " Hear, hear:) He
would give his Hon. Friend the Member for Pun-
gaevon some specimens of the sort of eloquent;, and of
some of the notions which were Most rife at those 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 ad them
nothing else—an Hon. Member of that House had re-
ferred to :11r. M‘Neile, of Liverpool, as a highly reelect-
ible sample of Christian clergy men ; and yet Mr.
M'Neile, in a speech the other day to the Operative
C.llFervatives of that town, had stated that if they sane •
the additional Kraut to Maynooth, they might
wall found a college for th-ft or adultery,' and in his
opinion the difference betwo.n the ministers of the
Roman Catholic Church and the Jesuits was nothing
more or less than the differeiv_e between a highwayman
and a pickpocket. And yet the Right lion. Gentleaatii
the Member for Perthshire (Mr. F. Miele) had moved
the thanks of the meeting lust night at Exeter
Hell. He had been too wise to harnia,r 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 bad 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 laughter.) 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 uncle- rstand it .; or if he bad un-
derstood it, he did not believe it.—(Leughter.) Such
were some of the statements sy which these lion. 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. Rolling, 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. He 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 if 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, whe,
with her soft words and smooth speeches, had forced
him to abandon all his principles—(Laughter)—and abide
sphernous_suth such
at a
these
he t hees
persons
these—sentiments
in tabernacles of the profane. It was by language such
a
d language which be felt bound to denounce as false,
voured to excite
hostility and continued dissensions.
sesennst
and
that,ended
ents
it
detestable, was
and by
bia sentiments -
And vet it was
Member
of
that
Hot this very meeting that a
Member whose privatee took the chair.—(Hear.) A
degree estimable but vv
u h ch.araeter was in the highest
, others who were Diembe s

of House, refrained frodeeXpressing their opine
where they were to be wet 'mid refuted, but who, if they
did not thetneelees speak at these ievetingen gave a sort of
sanction, -which; front men of-high standing, seas el eseat
'Ynric'tte:el3ressiug,their dissent ; and thus an
excite ill feeling, sod einlo ell the
aimttperforiptati wasice.
n-iae
good that had been effected in the public mind. By the
grant of the last fifty years to Maynooth, men of mind
had lent themselves to it. Persons cf character made
the most exaggerated statements when heated by party
disputes. He would read for the House the spec ch of the
Hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyne, in opposition
to the Bill. In that House the lion. Member made a
speech, certainly opposed to the grant, but of
so lukewarm, mild, and inoffensive a character,
that one would be inclined to doubt the •in-
cerity of his dissent, but that Honourable Member
delivered a speech at Exeter-hall which was calculated
to arouse and excite the feelings of the entire people
—that speech was printed by the Anti- Maynooth Asso-
ciation, and published in a pamphlet of Mr. Lord's, and
in the Churchman's Monthly Re,..iew —and which had
been commented upon and quoted as a text of infallible
authority. If the poor people out of doors knew lion.
Msmbers as well as they knevv one another they eould
not put so 'illicit trust in them.—(Hear, hear.) But
allowance ought to be made for the period, and the
atmosphere in ehich these spei clies were delivered ; that
speech wit:, made in 1836; it was published in the
Gina ehman's Rcriew
Mr. COI.QUIIOLTN—It was not published by 14.-x.
Mr. WARD--'shat may be. That- speech was pub-
lished by Mr. Lord. and contained the grossest perver-
sion of facts regarding Ireland that he had ever perused..
It stated that at the moment when Maynooth was
founded, and when Dr. Reilly and Dr. Troy were nego- I
tinting with Mr. Pitt on that subject, they were iu the
closest connexion with Wolfe Tone, and labouring with
him to revolutionise Ireland, and to sever the connexion
between Ireland and England. It further stated
that the Roman Catholic bishops had never acted
loyally except when they were engeged in some
treacherous design—some secret treason which was not
ripe for execution. There was no question as to the
reception which ought to be given to a prepositive' so de-
testable. It ought to be met with the scorn which it
merited--eevery lover of his country—every person claim-
ing the name of patriot, he would lay down his life—a
thousand lives if he bad them—
Mr. COLQUHOUN—I did not say a single word of
this.
Mr. WARD—Mr. Lord is answerable for this perver-
sion; bet as to the statements regarding the Roman
Catholic bishops, he would ask the Right lion. Gentle-
man at the head of the Government, the Chatic-:11or
or
the Exchequer, or any authority on that side of the
House who was decently conversant with Irish
affairs, whether Dr. Troy was not one of
the most devoted friends that England ever
had ?—(Hear, hear.) And as to the charge of re-
bellion, it was well known that in 1793 all the Catholic
clergy of Ireland were in a state of terror lest the prin-
ciples of the French Revolution should take root there.
Many of them had been expelled from France with the
greatest indignity, and the chief exertions of these men
were to prevent the taint of the revolutionary principles
from spreading in Ireland, and out of the whole body
of the Catholic clergy of Ireland there was not one who
joined in the rebellion of 1798. The rebellion was
created in the north by the Presbyterians, and not by
the Catholics, and the people in the south were driven to
insurrection by the tyranny of the Government.
This sort of appeal to the popular feeling
ought not to be made by men of Parliamentary
standing in this country, and when speeches of lion.
Members were quoted, they were not to be relied upon
as indisputable facts. If there was any breach of faith, it
was certainly ou the side of England ; because it was a
notorious fact that the Union could never have been car-
ried if the Catholics had not been induced to co-operate
with the Government and the Protestants. There was
a large body of evidence and many historical facts to
prove that prior to the fulfilment of Mr. Pitee pledges
it was intended that the church property of Ireland
should be alienated. Evidence of this sort was to be
found in the "Life of Lord Eldon," and he could not help
thinking that the nature of this evidence ought to have
prevented the executors from publishing it. He thought
there were things in Lord Eldon's life which ought not
to have been laid before the world within twenty years
after they occurred. It was stated in that work that the
sole and only obstacles to the fulfilment of the ,e pledges
wr s the insanity of the King. In 1789,
him re was an anti-Catholic spirit. Let any man read
~he debates of that period and he would find that the
most perfect unanimity existed in Parliament upon the
eeneral question and it was proposed that the Catholics of
Ireland should be emancipated and merged into the great
body of the Protestant constituency. He then went int,
many affecting details on the same subject. He (Mr.
Weed) should like to know whether the. Queen by the
Err liicipatien Act did not hell po:•:ssion et' her throne
by a firmer tenure than did the King ho reigeen
by
the rigour of the penal laws? Up to 1810 the Ring's
Ulnas was the sole bar to the granting of these concee-
sions to the Roman Catholics. After that year came
the dissolution of the Ministry. Thus it was that all the
benefits promised by England were one after the other
lost, and now when they were coming to something Ike the
same policy which had actuated them forty years ago,
they were thwarted in their attempts by the prejudices
engendered lithe hearts•of the Protestants of England
and Seetiand, by the wcrks of Protestant Tories, who
professed not the Toryism of his Bon. Friend the Mem-
ber for Oxford, bat a principle peculiarly their own. He
had spoken of _the Ron. Baronet, who stated that this
was a religious question. Nothing could be greeter
absurdity. The interest of the people ever was to look
to their own security; to have tranquillity at home find
power abroad; instead of that, they seemed to think that
the whoL i mpire was made fur the Church.—(liettr.)
There were other things to which they silted look be-
fore they dealt with the measure which the Government
prop )ser. It was opposed by it great class of their coun-
trvmen, who conceived it to be a direct infrineement of
their rights, and lie (Mr. Ward) did not keow anything
me dangerous titan to connect the consciete e with the.
PwO'nkled say t.l‘t the e were a largo holy of th,- people ini at was what he wished to al-0;d . but he
this country and Scotland who tole them that they paid
their own clergy, and that it would be an act of gross in-
justice, for the sake of tranquillising another iportion of
the empire, to tax them for the support of another
Church to which they did not belong. He could not
gainsay that argument—he could not deny that there
was a great deal of force and reason in it, when he
found that the Presbyterians, Orthodox, and Unitarians,
the Independents and the Wesleyan Methodists had
11,248 churches, resting entirely on voluntary support.
The Independents had twelve colleges, besides two
of the Wesleyans, which were supported at the
annual expense of twenty-four thousand pounds.
There could be no doubt, in acting properly, that they
ought to proceed upon the principle of restitution. He
had heard, the other night, the speech of the Right
Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Heine
Department, and lie could only regret its conclusions.—
(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman then went into a
long disquisition on the grievances of Ireland, and con-
cluded by expressing a hope that these wrongs would
are long be redressed. He believed, from what had
taken place, that it was clearly shown that Englund's
weakness was Ireland's strength. The Right Hon.
Gentleman oppesite bad the advantage of an opposition
which would assist him in carrying out his present plan.
—(Hear. heir.) They were ready to support him in
carrying out even a more comprehensive plan—(Hear)
htleds(gmrre.atwqauredst)iolnio,wannidaile.
—and, therefore, he (Mr. Ward) called up the Right
Hon. Baronet to reconcile his differences with those who
the supportedcma Captain
to concur with
ttaiciinnhßwimEhilleohnKELEY had great pleasure in seconding
the motion. He had voted for the measure of the Right
Hon. Baronet, but he had also voted (ever since he had
the heneur of a seat in Parliaineet) for the prinCiple
which was i olvcd in the present. motion._
((leen)
It would not be consistent with his pest Parliamentary
conduct, if he did not support the prey: nt motion,
whether or not he was allowed the honour of seconding
it. lie hart voted for the appropriateei clause in 183,1,
and he thought that the mode proposed by his Hon.
Friend the Member for Sheffield was the most reasonable
and perfect in, which the grant could be supplied.
(Hear, hear.) " The Irish church was the great grievance
of Ireland. It had been declared such by all the evowed
friends of Ireland for the last century, and the... best
friends of the Protestant religion had concurred irn the
opinion. The Honourable Member then referred'
to the address of ten thousand persons, asittoblcd
Mallow, to the nlarquis or Noriwinhy, c -n-
gratulating that nobleman opoe the results of his
government of the
country as Lord-Lieutenant. He
asked them, how could Gentlern.:4l opposite expect to
conciliate Ireland when they had deprived that country
of so good a Governor ?—(flear, hear.) ile hiievcd
that, in supprting the present motion, was supp
Church ort-
ing the ,est intesests of th, country, an lei the
ti which he
Sir T O.S. FREMANTLE said that in objseting to the
d
amendment, he felt called upon to respect the coinistency of
the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, who had ad-
hered to' his own views upon this qUestion, threugh goad re-
port and through evil report.--(Hear, hear.) The Hon-
'Member had lost no opportunity of putting forward the prin-
ciple embodiedn the present motion—( Loud cheers)—but
the present occasion was moss. inopportune. The principle
Was too important to be discussed upon the question of a small
grant of 26,000/.—(Crics of ,‘ Hear, hear," and " Oh, oh.")
Many Gentlemen who were opposed to the grant might take
this opportunity- of voting with the Hon. Member for
the purpose of defeating the Government. But, in saying
this, he (Sir T. Fremantle) was bound to admit the courtesy
and consideration with which the Hon. Gentleman had acted
since the debate was opened.—(Hear, hear.) There we e
other inconveniences connected with the Hon. Gentleman's
motion—for instance, if this motion were carried, another
Committee would be necessary to vote the particular class of
funds out of which the grant should be supplied. In 1834 the
Honourable Gentleman defeated the Ministry by propounding
this principle. In 1835 the Ministry were again
defeated upon it.—(Hear, hear.) In 1836 and 1837
the measures, which included the principle of appro-
priation, were rejected. But in 1838, an anti-national
Bill was obliged to be carried, by the abandonment of appro-
priation. He would therefore put it to the Han. Member for
Sheffield, whether he would hazard the overthrow of the mea-
sure now before the House, by pressing again the question of
appropriation, which had hitherto been fatal to Ministers and
to measures ?—( Hear, hear.) The lion. Gentleman then
proceeded to quote from a speech made by Lord Morpeth in
opposition to the appropriation principle. The appropriation
principle did not succeed in 1838, and it could be opposed on
much better grounds now. He quoted this inconsistency to
show that the same arguments would do for them at the present
moment. Nothing could be more dangerous to this measure than
to tack the appropriation principle to it. The principle in-
volved the appropriation of the whole of the Church property
in Ireland ; and by taking 26,000/. out of it, for that or any
other purpose, they would violate their principles, and then it
would be left to their future consideration how much more
they should take.—(Hear, bear.) lie would call upon the

unjust.

House to pledge, itself to adhere to these principles, and to
eppote this motion, which bad for its object the entire recoil.
F rue t ion of the property of the Church in Ireland. , The Hon.
Merzber who proposed it stated his views as to the recon-
struction two years ago. He eald that he would give 70,0001.
to the Protestant Church Establishment, 700,000/. to the
Preeby scrim's and a\ sisho a-es. it; Itch:rid, and that he would
give the remainder to the Roman Catholics. That was the
principle which was now under their consideration. It was a
question of opinion, and, if they granted 26,0001. out of the
Church property this year, they would have to
grant a great deal more next year. The question
was, whether they were to reconstruct the disposal of the
property in several ways, and to confiscate the property
of the F.stablished Church in Ireland. Were they justified in
making any such appropriation? Were they standing there
as legislators looking bark and viewing all the circumstances
connected with the Union, and the understanding entered
into to continue the support of that Church at that time, justi-
fied in consenting to such an appropriation? It was impossible
for any person to read the words of the articles of the Union
without feeling sath-fled that it would be a breach of a most
solemn compact to confiscate the property of the Church of
Ireland. They must consider the circumstances under which
the Union wast aesed, and ask themselves whether the Par-
lisments both in Ireland and England did not. give additional
seeurity to the maintenance of the Established Church. With
refereece to the Maynooth Bill it was stated that
the Ereeneieetiee, act could niit have pa sett if the property
the Est,dlished Church in !relied was not under-toed to
retied') netenched. If they adopted this prineirne what r fee'
would t hose neen every other description of prop.nty ? Let
them lock to forfeited estates in Ireland, allow inethe t
those holding them became originally possessed by acts of vio-
lence and spoliation, were they justified now in going back and
looking at their titles and shaking the foundation of property
of this description ? If the Hon. Gentleman would deal in this
manner with church property, he would affect all other pro-
perty to the same extent.—( Hear, hear.) There were for
instance many Acts of Parliament which might he held equally
' Let them look at the contract existing? He did not
argue in favour of the Bill on the grounds of that contract,
but as there was an understanding they were net justified in
breaking it, and they were tioubl; fortified in using
that argument with Teferonce to the Established
Church, which was a endowment in the
terms of the Act of Union- He believed it involved the
qoestion of repudiation. and the National Debt.—( Hear.)
They might say, with regard to the latter, that they would de-
to pay it, as they hid nothing to do with it, it was entirely
the act of their forefathers. But no. the feeling of the people
of this country was too deeply involved for them to take such a
course, they believed that it was a national compact, and he
hoped that the property of the Church of Ireland might be
considered in the same light. Such a meanie would lower the
authority of Parliament and shake their confidence in this
country to a great extent. Ho had the evidence of an Hon.
Member of that House ( Mr. Blake) on this subject, who
stated that he considered the Protestant establishment
the great link of connexion between the two eountries,
it being established by the fundamental laws of the
realan and could notbe disturbed without danger to all the bles-
sings which they derived. He (Sir T. Fremantle) supported
the Established Church on higher grounds. He thought it
the duty of the State to--maintain a religious establishment ;
some form of Christianity should be maintained by the State,
and should be subject, in some respects. to the control and re-
gulation of the State. The Roman Catholic Church did not
comply with these conditions ; the Established Church did, and
it bad been connected with the State, and, as a Protestant, he
could net consent to its subversion. He would ask the
Honourable Member ( Mr. Ward) what course they
were to take? Were they to adopt the voluntary principle,
to endow all sects, or should they torow everything in Ireland
into a state of the greatest possible confusion? The appropria-
tion of 26,0001. from the Church property in Ireland to the
assistance of the Roman Catholics, would be the ground for
renewed applications for a great deal more. They would be
throwing a bone of contention, for which they should not cease
to fight for many years to come. It would create discontent
and excite religious animosity in that country, to an extent to
which it had not been hitherto carried. The contest would
be not only for power, but for money. What would be the
feeling of the Roman Catholics ? They Would say that they
got but. a miserable instalment.—(Hear, hear.) Would it
be sati.factory to the. Protestants? While they withheld any-
thing from them, they would consider themselves aggrieved
parties. Nor would those who were agitating for a national
Government be bribed from prosecuting their purpcse, and
made more firm supporters of the British Government by any
concession of this sort ?—( Hear, hear. ) The Protestants
would be very much indisposed to continue their attachment to
the Union ; their best supporters would become in that case,
perhaps, their mo.t deadly enemies. The Right Hon. Gen-
tleman then referred to statements made in a work called
" Ireland and its Rulers,* which he said appeared to be written
by a gentleman well acquainted with the two countries, and in
which it was remarked that the abolition of the Irish Church
Establishments would be a heavy blow to the Union,—
(Hear, hear.) The feeling of the Protestants against such
an appropriation would be rs strong in England as
in Ireland, which was shown by the many petitions which had
crowded the table of the House.—( Hear, hear.) It was stated
also that the existence of the Established Church in Ireland
was a monstrous insult and injury to the people o' Ireland. He
denied that such nas the feeling there. He wanted to know
how the possession of property by one particular pasty could be
an insult to the rest of the community. He mu-t consider the
pos-ession of property, whether by a corporation or a private
individual, or one particular church, as an accidental circum-
str,c..7 "hat did not imply an insult, an jery, or adt grarlai ion to
:h. ,:ho rid not possess it. q;iie clear that these
on' were eaterely reumeed to ;he part of this cen-
to,:, ei hen the Roman Calle) ta diselsinied any desire to in-
k., te e with the property of thii F.sialitslied Church, and they
use d language to thsr effect in their petitions wile, they came
to tbac House for relief. They used those expressions for the
purpose of negativing the possibility of their entertaining the
idea that the possession of property by the Established Church
was an insult or an injury to them. le 1808, in their petitions
they stated that they did not reeine at their possession or env%
it. He was inelined io think the Protestant Church was justified
in maintaining its rigl.ts, and at the same time he vans
equally prepared to admit that io those rights many duties
were attached. The grant to "Ala.,: nootls could not. l,e taken
its the light of an act of restitution. It was consistent
with justice, and not in the least at, variance with !tie
morality or priociole at the Estali:islied Church. He there-
for: tested in, House would support the Government in
cairsing the in.
Si' WALTER JAMES very much agreed with his Hen,
Friend, who had just—sat down, that grave and technical
objections might, be placed against the motion of the Hon.
Member for t•qkffield. If the Hun. Geritleman carried his
point the House would be going into a Committee
to ascertain the Ecc esiaetical Revenues of the
Irish Church, instead of going into Committee on the
Government Bill. He thought al-o that there were grave
constitutional objections to the metion of th Hon. Ai.ember
for Sheffield. Looking at. the importance of the Act of Union,
which could not be classed among the common Acts of Parlia-
ment, he thought it would be insulting the Irish Protestant
Church if they were to go into Committee to ascertain the
extent and power of its revenues, instead of for considering a
Bill which simply had for its object the endowment of the
College of Maynooth. When be stated that grave technical
and constitutional objections might be made against the mo-
tion, he felt also bound to confess that he thought the subject
of the Irish Church must, before many years were
passed, come seriously under the consideration of the House.
Respecting, as he did, the faith of that Establishment, and ad-
miring its creed—devoted, as he was, to its liturgy, and to
everything which ever had or ever would belong to it—he still
felt it to be the duty of Parliament to take such a step as the
one proposed by Government. lie had been anxious to address
the House upon the subject of the Bill, because he had re-
ceived many serious representations from large bodies of his
constituents, praying him to offer his earnest opposition to the
Government of the Right Hon, Baronet upon it. He would,
however, have been ashamed of hi 1, self had he given any
countenance to these representations. All his family had been
supporters of Catholic Emancipation, and he thought it was
his duty still to continue favourable to the same spirit of con-
cession. Mr. Pitt intended the Act of Union to be accome
panied by an Act for the payment of the Roman Catholic
priesthood. Amongst those who had made representations to
him upon this subject, there was a body of persons whom he
would fain not pass by without expressing his sincere respect
for them. They were Wesleyan Methodists, than whom no
one had done so much to advance the cause of the Chris-
tian religion. When he remembered the fields in which the
Wesleyan Methodists laboured, though perhaps not like the
Catholic priests, whom they had so often reviled—when he
remembered that, in the mining and colliery villages of this
great kingdom he always saw the Wesleyan minister with the
Bible in his hand, spreading the truths of Christianity,
and advocating the principles if the Gospel, he felt bound
to give him his sincere though humble respect.—( Hear,
hear.) The practical views which had been taken of
this question by many Honourable Gentlemen or at all
events by the Right. Honourable Gentleman the Chancellor
of the Exchequer and the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secre-
tery for Ireland was, that it was simply a small measure for
merely increasitee a grant from 8,000/. to 26f000/. per annum,
anti the flight Hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh
had asked why, if they consented to pay 8,0001. for wretched-
rtes.:, -hookd they reii;e foe cemfort and cleanliness.
Now, for past, he coule t,:ke so narrow a view of the
question. He considered it, so fur as his fellow-countrymen
Weld concerned, a large and conciliatory measure, involving,
and likely to lead to many important results. He wished the
House to look at the conciliatory spirit in which the measu. e
had'been.received in Ireland—(Cries of " Hear, hear ")
and then to say whether it was net snore just:
to !. /o.g. at. the measure /ether as one of a series of measures
than as a single rneesure. It was so linked upon in Ireland,
and it was so considered by the Cork Southern Reporter, which
represented the feeling of the principal Catholics in Ireland.
He believed the Catholic clergy of Irelrnd would be willing to
accept the additional boon, if it was given them in a spirit of
toleration and kindness; but then, if that were done, of course
the question came home to bin, " Where is the money to
come from ?" Well, then, if it did not come from the people
of Ireland, he was bound to ask himself was he doing justice
by his fellow-countrymen, by saying to them, " You pay for
your own church en account of conscientious scruples—you pay
for my church also, and now you must pay for another." He
was hound in this instance, tilt only to look. to the interests of
the Irish Church, but he was bound also to look to the inte-
rests of 'A hut his !light Hon. Friend the Member for the Uni-
versity of Oxford called "the rivrer and dearer institutions of
the Church of England," arid iv> cautioned the. House not to
turn his dissenting fellow-countrymen against that Church.
They could not do anything athich woald t,;ve a severer blow,
or give heavier discortragmeni to that + CCurc 'which he be-
liev«l now rested upon the affections of the people, and which,
in.the truthful words of Mr. Hallam, "is sustained by, and
with, and for the people."—(Hear, hear.) He wished to
notice, before he sat down, come of the religious objections to
this me,soro. It wag; said that it was not their duty to propa-
gate Catholicism ; ail(' here he would tske the liberty of asking
what was Catholieism ? There might he error of various kinds,
and error might be so slight or so insignificant compared
with the many truths which they disseminated with it, that
even the best Christians could not say that his own creed did
not contain some portion of error. Error, on the other hand,
might be so false, so abominable, and contain in it something
so very anti-Christian, that it was their bounden duty to come
forward and resit it. He did riot believe Rome was either
anti• Christian or idolatrous, and yet his Hots. Friend, in his
conscience, believed Rome to be anti-Christian, and adopted
all those bigoted expressions in the petitions which had been
presented aeainst the Bill. Now although lie saw much in the
Church of Rome to deplore, he was far from believing it to
be an anti-Christian Church, for it was able to pro-
pagate truth notwithstanding its many errors. He
did not know any one proposition that was more
likely to sap the foundation of his belief altogether, than to
imagine that Church, to which our ancestors belonged, taught
such false doctrines that it was perfectly impossible for any
man who belonged to it to reach salvation. What must he
the feelings of those gentlemen who came over to this country
from Maynooth College, when, as they advanced towards tha'
House, the first thing that met their eyes was a dozen or
eighteen ragamuffins carrying immense placards concerning
meetings against the grant to Maynooth—with, on the one
hand, the great gaunt walls of Westminster before them, What on
the other the comparatively fillery work of Mr. Barry ? ,
he asked, must be their feelings but those of distaste, if not of
disgust for the charity or benevolence of England.—(Cheers.)
He did not look to the consistency of the arguments used upon
the one side or the other; but, taking the whole of them into