Star.
London, England, 1829-03-17 00:00:00

lialembeihad oa tf farmer occasion toted in a Contrary
spirit. He found'he was not mistaken, for in 1824 did
Hon. Maliber voted'for a Motion of the Hon. Member.
for Montrose, which went to reduce the Church Establish-
ment of Ireland. He found that the Hon. Member for Li-
merick bad made an eloquent speech in support of the
motioa,vliich was declared byLord Plut:kett and Mr. L.
Foster to be a question merely as to the amount of church
property in [rapid that was to be confiscat-d. He did
-not quote this with a design to attack the Honourable
Member for Limerick (Mr. Spring Rite), but with a
view merely to defend himself from the unjustifiable
observations of the Honourable Member, when he, the
other night, declared he would rather forego the advan-
tages to be derived from the measore•of Emancipation,
than consent to any thing that would in the slightest
degree go to attack the property of the Protestant
Church in Ireland. He was
,prepared to defend him-
self from any attacks, come from whom they might.
He felt that the subject was one of great importance,
Sind it was not his intention to enter on it thence
but he trusted he would have an opportunity, when
the Bill came to be discussed. of showing that, nowevee
tzcellent the motion of the Right Honourable Gentle.
man was, still it would fail to accomplish the pacifica-
tion of Ireland ; and, leaving the point 'to which he had
tamed uniedsessed, it would be only changing the
topic of discussion. They would then have the Catho-
lic Association in the HOUse—(hear)"—and th ugh the
measure might satisfy the Catholic aristocracy, it would
leave the people entitely unbenefitted—(tear)—the
priesthood unprotected, and would controul and disci.
pate their own expectations.
Mr. SPRING RICE felt that an apology was due to
the House for calling their attention to an individual
so humble as himself; but after the observations of the
Member for Colchester, be tru.ted that he would be
heard in reply. He could assure Honourable Gen-
tlemen that en other circumstances but such as could
not be resisted c, uld induce him to bring himself
into collision with any Honourable Member. He
would repel the charge that had been made against
him, and he would take the liberty of saying, not
that the conduct of the Honourable Gentleman was
insincere, but it had the greatest appearance of in-
sincerity of any be bad ever witnessed in that House,
or in any other place. He would advert to the speech
just made, and would ask the Hon. Member for Caches.'
ter how he could reconcile two propositionothe first.'
his readiness to vote for the Bill; and the second, his
readiness to take.the line of conduct with reference to,
that measure most calculated to injure it? Did the Hoes'
Gentleman not know that every word V what he bad
.now stated was calculated to injure the progress of that
question? On that-point he would join issue with him,
and let him contradict Rim if he could, and show that if
he c id not advocate the measure, he would riot take a
course which had a tendency to defeat it. The Has,
Gentleman bad heard to-night, and on a former night,
by oboe he was cheered when saying what had a ten-
dency to injure the Catholic question. He did not speak
this lightly, nor solely on his own authority, but would
refer to what bad fallen from the Hondurable Member.
for Norwich, who bad thanked the Member for Cooe.
Chester for honestly saying that be approved of •
the mess
sore, because it went to pull clOwn the Church in Ire-
land. He would also refer to what had been stated by
the Hon. Member for Oxford, and to the monster in
which the declaration had been hailed in the various
publicatioas opposed to the measure. That declaration
amounted to this; chat the King recommended the mod.
•isure so far as was consistent with the safety of the Irish
Church,_ and it was s° introduced by the Right Hon.'
Secretary for the HomirDfrpartment ; and he (Mr. S.
Rice) as a Wand to it, wished to see it carried in con-
sistency with the•saftty of the church to which he be.
longed, when the Won. Gentleman came as is professed
friend to it as a new convert. and then spoke of mica.
culous cmorersions. He never wished to see such miol
raculoos conversions as those of the Hon. Member. Is
war there •ere some who came over from one party to'
another, and, perhaps, could be received with the least
safety by the •party they assisted. The Honourable
Gentleman bad virtually skid he disbelieved the Mes-
sage from the Throne, the .authority of the late Mr.
Grattan, and of the Member of -Waterford, and he had
been cheered by Hon. Members- below the gangway;
and the opinion had been taken out of doors on the an-
thority of the Member for Colchester, and he wished
them joy of• it. Had be thought the Honourable
Gentleman's words were lightly spoken he would not
have animadverted upon them ; but that•was not the
case, although be bad changed his position 'from the
wounds oa which he rested the last time the measure
was discussed. If the observations he had made
were so unfair, there had been opportunity for reply..
ing to them on Friday; and he would have beer,
better pleased had the earliest opportunity been taken,
and it was no fault of his if the matter was suf-
fered to rest. As to the charge of inconsistency
brought againq him, none had been proved; and he
would not go farther in vindication than to expose the
fallacy which had appeased thtoughuat the arbola state.
• ment of the (lon. Gentleman: When be first entered
Parliament. be found two opinions with respect to
auras property :—the first was that of a class of per.
sons who maintained tbst the Churhh property was in all
rospects sacred and inviolable, and not to be touched by
the legislature:and the second, 'which his Hon. Friend
the Member fir Montrose supported, was that the
Cr uich property was public property, and liable to be
applied' to the purposes of the State, saving the existing
rights of individuals. He to k a different slew
from both. He thought the ecclesiastical property in
Ireland and England was protected by la*, as well as
privive property ; but he differed in this, that he consi•
dered it held by the conditionof the fulfilment of a great •
public trust ; and, while he denied that it could be con-
fiscated to public purposes, he deniedalso the refusal o•
the right of inquiry into the manner in which that public
vest was discharged. When the proposition was brought
forward that the property of the Church mishit be con-
fiscated, saving the resting rights of individuals, he bad
always said I 10" to it; and when made again he should
leave it to the sbpport Of the Hon. Meinber for Colches-
ter, tor it shoold' not bilis his. When, however, it
was proposed to make the Church property in Ireland
more eScieht fur the purposes of its foundation, he had
certainly voted fur that. proposition. He did not say
that a moti.n to promote inquiry could affect the Ca-
tholic Question; but a project of confiscation; and for
ioqu ry he had voted, but for confiscation never. In
1b2421 the Honourable Member for Montrose. brought
ptisposition, and he did not assent to. it; but
drew op an amendment. 101823, the same Hosicura-
ble Member istrodoced a mine specik molidlts that the
OraPettr. r f the Chard was publie peOperti. To
this hetbutsr slut giie his consent, and took ao part
io the discussion. I; 1824, the, Honourable Neap'
her foe Montro.e• (Mr. Haim) moved; silt ftit cola.
liscation, but inquiry.. and see out de übjectir
intestlgetioh the plurality" tat. Aba
der ce of the,Clirgy, • its feteits..ae. and. he (Mr. 11;
. rest
Riot ) thought thea; wet{ ftsatifitiiiO4.
.110
Hotiout4tiU. tithibietie Cain had refetrid• Si