The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-08-08 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-WEDNESDAY.

Mr. TRELAWNEY (on the adjourned debate being re-
sumed) contended that the right of the church to its pro-
perty was not indefeasible, and condemned the applica-
tion of a coercive policy to Ireland.
Sir R. INGLIS maintained the title of the church to its
endowments. The mover, whatever else might be im-
puted to him, could not be accused of having deceived
the house ; he had taken away from Lord John Russell
and his partisans all excuse for voting in favour of the
motion. He bad broadly proposed to strip from the
church in Ireland all the revenue it possessed except
£7o,ooo—that is, to take away 7-Bths, or 17s. 6d. in the
pound ; and yet had gravely added, that this was no un-
worthy compromise ! He had left the church with scarce
a rag to cover her nakedness, and then, putting a halter
round her neck, had handed the other end of the rope to
her bitterest enemies. The manner of the hon. member
had, indeed, been courteous; but the bowstring was not
less fatal because it might be made of silk. He admitted
that in some respects the Church of Ireland had failed of
her duty ; in particular, the Scriptures ought to have been
translated in the language of the people. But he denied
the validity of the arguments deduced from former abuses
of that church, and showed the improvements of its mi-
nistry in recent times. Mr. Ward, however, grounded
his reasoning mainly upon numbers, and was prepared to
establish the creed of Bramah or of Fo, if it were the
creed of the majority. From that principle he dissented ;
for he was persuaded that it was just as much our public
as our private duty to teach and advance what we believed
to be the true religion. The question, moreover, was not
what religion we should establish ; the motion went not
to establish a religion, but to destroy one already esta-
blished ; and that, too, by more than any ordinary law,
by a compact of two independent legislatures. The mul-
titudes, therefore, who were collected to destroy that es-
tablishment were not entitled to plead that they were
seeking only the repeal of a statute. When emancipation
was conceded, it was upon the assurances, given by the
leading Catholics themselves, that it would not be employed
to weaken, but would rather avail to fortify, the Protes-
tant church. He would maintain that church, because
he believed its doctrine to be the truth, because it was a
doctrine established by the treaty of two kingdoms, be-
cause he valued it for its works of charity, and because
he regarded it as the great bond of connexion between
England and Ireland.
Lord LISTOWEL declaimed against'the Irish Church
settlement as contrary to principle and common sense ;
and pronounced it to be a just retribution that Ireland
should have become a source of danger to England.
Lord BERNARD asked how long a majority, who found
it thus intolerable to acquiesce in a Protestant Church,
would submit to a Protestant monarchy ? He contended
that the Church now established in Ireland was the Church
of the ancient Irish people, and went into historical cita-
tions in support of this proposition, showing that though
the Bishops in that country had not acceded to the refor-
mation, it had been adopted by the Chiefs and the laity,
who had given their full adhesion to HENRY VIII. But
he would uphold the Protestant church on other and high-
er grounds—on the grounds of its own superiority, and the
duty of extending its faith among the people. He denied
the value of arguments deduced from by-gone abuses of
the church, and bore his testimony to the merits of the
Protestant clergy of the present time.
Mr. COCHRANE said, that as the arguments for the mo-
tion were only what they had been on former occasions,.
he trusted the division against them would be as decisive
as heretofore. He was glad to find that the Government
took a tone of determination against such a proposal. He
did not see that the concessions already made had improved
our position. The expediency of paying the Roman Cath-
olic clergy was a very different question from the fitness of
stripping the Protestant church. The mover did not ask
to take the whole ; but after the arguments which had
been used about the past, he wished to know what security
there was that if more were given now, the rest would not
shortly be demanded. He exhorted the Government to act
with that strength which was better than the force of ma-
jorities—with strength of mind.
Mr. V. STUART desired the house to consider the
church question not as an isolated one, but as one connec-
ted with all the other Irish questions. This was not an
affair of religion, but an affair of money ; and they who
put it on religious grounds showed little confidence in their
own church, when they treated it as incapable of support-
ing itself without those vast pecuniary means. The Pro-
testant church was that great grievance which had hitherto
kept the people in misery. It had not even accomplished
its own purposes; for the numbers of the Roman Catho-
lics were increasing in a larger proportion than those of
the Protestants.

Mr. HARDY dwelt upon the assurances so repeatedly
given by the Roman Catholics when they were seeking
emancipation, that there was no desire on their part to dis-
turb the Protestant Church ; and he read the oath which
is taken by Roman Catholic members of the legislature
against attempting any such disturbance. Those who
talked about freedom of religion did not themselves con-
cede it : the Roman Catholic poor were not allowed by
their own authorities to read their Bible ; and if any one
of them should seek instruction by attending a Protestant
place of worship, he would be denounced from the altar as
a man to be shunned by all his neighbours. Mr. Hardy
was proceeding, when a motion was made that the house
should be counted ; and it being found that there were not
40 members present, the house was adjourned.