The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-04-27

amount or oOCl9slastlOhi property y III bppllob
IL TO secular purposes-puTposes that have,
indeed, a sort of tinge or halo of righteousness
about them, but the effect of which is to re-
duos the amount of county rates paid by
Irish tenants.
Mr.. O'Connell followed Lord Althorp, aud
expressed his warm approval Of the bill,
which he considered CONTAINED within itself
the seeds of future amelioration." The bill,
though not going so far az he could wish, was
founded on valuable principle, since 1t re-
oogniaed the right of Government to look into
the state of ecclesiastical property hereafter.
"They had in Ireland fever hospitals, recepta-
ces for the insane and institutions where in
dividuals afflicted with various maladies are
received. These institutions might be sup
ported by q portion Of that ecclesiastical pro-
perty." 1t would, he thought, be found here
after that, by due appropriation of part of
those Church revenues, the country might be
relieved from the Grand Jury Cess. II thus
appears that the destination Of the ultimate
surplus of the Irish Church was anticipated
by OConnell. Mr.. Gladstone is adopting word
for word the suggestion which O'Connell
then made; but in so far as 0'Connell spoke
broadly of applying ecclesiastical property to
the purposes he recommended, he was de-
parting from the proposal of the Ministry of
the day. He might choose to think that their
bill would afterwards lead to applying eoole-
siastioal property to secular purposes, but
this was something different from what they
proposed. They were secular funds secular
because invented and called into existence by
the State, that the Government of Earl Grey
proposed that Parliament should, If it thought
fit apply to secular purposes. AT later
period of the evening Mr.. Stanley owned that
the Cabinet were, as had been limited by a
previous speaker, not agreed on the abstract
point whether the State had a right to touch
Church property, but he said that the pro-
hsNask TAD 80 khn
not raise the question, because
the Church had no claim to property
which it had never possessed; and although
Mr.. Stanley did not in the course of his speech
refer to the particular suggestions of O'Con-
nell, or express approval or disapproval OF
| them, he contended that the difference be-
tween the former value and the increased
value of the episcopal lands might be applied
to secular purposes, or to any purposes that
the State might direct. On the other hand,
as Mr., Stanley is now the Earl Of Derby, it ought
to be recorded that he at the same time stated
that he would never consent to any measure
which he thought in his conscience and judg-
ment would destroy or iDiure the Protestant
| Church in Ireland, or would interfere with the
extension of the Protestant religion.
The Opposition was led by Sir Robert Inglis
and Sir Robert Peel. The former urged that,
if the King were to pass the bill, he would
| violate his coronation oath, and that the men,
bers of the Legislature were equally bound by
the oath they had taken not to support it. He
also thought the bill an infraction of the Act of
| Unien, and contrary to the preamble of the
! Catholic Emancipation act. He also thought
that, when Lord Althorp said that the reve-
nues of the Irish Church were excessive, he
| forgot the ''expansive force of Professionalism -
Further, if so many Irish bishops were sup
| pressed, how would there be enough to attend
in the House of Lords? And he ended by
dwelling on the merits of the Irish clergy, and
the danger to the Church of Eng
land if the Church of Ireland were in
jured. Nothing could be more different,
or more curiously mark the difference between
the habits of thought and the intellectual
capacity Of the two men, than the objections
of Sir Robert Peel. His first objection was
that proposition of this sort, as relating to
matters of religion, ought to have been
brought forward in a COMMITTEES of the whole
House. He admitted that the time was come
when the whole state of the Church of Ireland
must undergo an enlarged and comprehensive
consideration. He approved of redstributing
the revenues of the Church so as to make 1t
better able to propagate and extend the bless
ings Of the Protestant faith; and he
thought that church. rates ought in
some way to be abolished. He could moi
say whether twenty-five bishops were or were
not too many for Ireland, but Sir Robert Pee
in no way questioned the perfect right of Par
lament to suppress bishoprics, if it could be
shown that there were too many. He had nc
scruple in interfering with the spiritua
organization of the Church. With regard t.
the proposed application of the improved
value of the land, Sir Robert Peel acknow
lodged that the Government had offered theil
proposal as one that did not raise the question
whether ecclesiastical property could properly
be applied to secular uses; but he urged tha
it was calculated to mislead, and that, as
matter Of fact, it had misled the House, an(
declaration that the Government wer,
prepared to secularize Church property
There can be no doubt that Sir Robert Pee
was right. The House welcomed the measure
for this reason, which was very popular in tn
House. II was thought to be, and it was i'm
} mediately treated by O'Connell as being, al
! indication of the determination of the Govern
: ment to establish this principle. Lord Althorl
and Mr.. Stanley did what they could to max
this misunderstanding impossible; but the
, were misunderstood, and much of the disap
I pointment and irritation caused by the bill
was owing to this misunderstanding. Even t
this day traces this misunderstanding remain
and there are persons who confidently asser
that Lord Derby in 1888 himself proposed tina
the property Of tho Church should be apple
: to such secular purposes as were then sue
I gested by O'Connell, and are now suggeste
I by Mr.. Gladstone.
, The progress of the measure was delaye
7 by the passing of the bill, introduced in az
cordsnce with the Kings speech, for the sur
: preston OF disturbances in Ireland. This bi
= was commenced in the Lords, and was rea
: for third time there on February 22 Th
first reading OF the bill was moved in tn
IAI--