Year: 1869

British Parliament.


The adjourned debate on the second reading OF the
Irish Church BILL In the House Of Commons, on Mon.
day, March %, was opened by Sir II. Palmer Pre-.
facing his speech with the remark that most Of the
motives which influenced human nature led him to
give his support to the government on
this bill, and that II he took n DIFF
ferent course 1t was the result of an over
wnelming necessity, he went on to say that he
had no sympathy with those who impugned the mo.
tlyes OF the Prime Minister and his colleagues the
government. Furthermore, he could not shut his
eyes TO the fact that there crisis In Ireland:
but that, he thought was made the more grave
and serious for the very reason that the Legis-
lature had shown ITSELF anxious 10 make the union
with Ireland real union for this circumstance in
stead OF producing reconciliation Of feeling be.
tween the people OF the two countries, seemed only
10 make things worse. He could not but feel then
that they were called upon deeply 10 consider the
causes and discover, II possible remedy for this
state OF things. With view to this end he was
ready to go certain length even on this question OF
bonorable friends Al The same time he cand sn,
conceal from himself that the principle of the bill
was not disestaolshment only Ia the sense In which
he used the term, but disestablishment accompa.
MED by universal disendowment; ard TO that prin.
ciple he could not agree because In his Judgment IL
would be great act Of Injustice. lie apprehended
indeed that Its consequences might be TO defeat the
salutary effects OF the measure In other respects.
As to dsestablshment, taking 1t TO mean sever.
ance OF the connection between the laws and pstl.
tutions OF the Church and the laws and government
OF the State he could not regard IL as either repun.
ClauOn OF national christianity or an act OF national
spostacy, The question was whether IL was for the
public good. II IL were not for the public good II
would not be for the good OF religion; but n for the
good Of religion 1t would be for the good OF the
public. Was there then, In the case OF ireland any
ground for supposing that the state OF political
privilege That constituted the establishment was
useful TO the church, Reasonably or not the ex-
lsteDce OF these political privileges believed TO
De one OF tne causes or roots OF dsanection among
great part Ol the irish people; but was disendow
ment necessary consequence OF the taking away
oi p0llllcal ascenuencyf lie did not think that the
necessity was IN the nature Of things, nor that II
arose out Oh tne justice of the case. Neither could
any precedent be found for adopting sucn a course
IL was unparalleled even by the extensive appro-
priaton Of church property which took pace nj the
time OF the Reformation, and was In direct contra.
distinction TO the recent example Of Canada and
that OF the United States at the time of the
contend that dlsestablishment did not ne.
OF the revenues, for that was undenably the case
with Episcopal revenues. Let the Church be
reduced TO the position Of q disestablished church.
and the Crown patronage and Its parliamentary
position taken from II and II could not be argued
that the same amount OF Episcopal revenues could
be claimed for II, or that those revenues could be
looked at In the same light az the incomes OF tn,
parochlal clergy. No case however, had, In h'
opinion been made out 10 justify the confscaton o.
private endowments created anterior To 1890. Th'
Protestant laty OF Ireland had done nothing TO FOR
felt their right TO the spiritual mnstratiOns OF the
clergy and he held that II would be gross injustice
" deprive them OF those SERVICES Wa