will neglect or ignore the question of the it. By I admit that in these days events move rapidly, and that in such matters we all have to make allowances for one another. But I do say that when a change of policy is conscientiously adopted-that there has been a change no one can deny, and I certainly will not say it is not conscientious-it ought, if only as a matter of prudence, not to assume a shape in which, by outside observers, it is likely to be confounded with an electioneering manoeuvre. For thirty years Gentlemen opposite have had this question before them; and what have they done, or attempted to do, during that time? their own confession, they have done absolutely nothing at all. I do not blame them for that. If they thought it best not to touch this question, they had a perfect right to abstain from doing so. But it is a little singular that now, being no longer in power, they cannot even wait for their own Commission to report-(for it was at the instance of Earl Russell that the Commission now sitting with regard to the Established Church in Ireland was appointed)—that they cannot even allow the most necessary business of the Session to be transacted, so great is their zeal to pass, without an hour's delay, a Motion on which by no possibility, even if they can agree as to what it means, can they act until next year. Sir, I think the country will form its own judgment on all this. And if the right hon. Gentleman repeats on the hustings the phrase which he uttered in his most emphatic tones the other night, "Justice delayed is justice denied," I think he will find among the crowd some one with common sense enough to ask, "If this be justice, by whom has it been delayed? You have had the power in your own hands for twenty-five years, why did not you do justice?" But then it is said, "The passing of these resolutions will be a message of peace to Ireland?" Will it be a message of peace to the North of Ireland? Do not let me be mistaken. I am not arguing that you are not to do what you think just and right—that you are not to follow your own conscience and conviction, whether by so doing you satisfy or dissatisfy either North or South, or both, though as to the time and manner of even doing acts of justice considerations of policy may intervene. But if you put what you are doing on the ground of conciliation, I think it only fair to ask you to look at both sides. You have in Ireland 1,500,000 of Protestants, Presbyte rians, and members of the Established | prise, some criticisms on the Amendment Church, all, I apprehend, feeling alike on which it is impossible for me to leave this matter. They may have their faults; with out answer. The right hon. Gentleman but with all their faults they are by far in the course of his remarks has called the most energetic and active part of the it "dilatory." Other critics out-of-doors Irish population. These Resolutions have have called it "disingenuous." How it undoubtedly come upon them by surprise; can be dilatory I do not know; for I have and if they pass I am afraid you will have endeavoured to give the House the earliest created in their minds a feeling of rage opportunity of voting "Aye" or "No" and resentment that will go among many upon these Resolutions. How it is disinof them, in a country where passion runs genuous I am still more puzzled to conhigh, very near to disaffection. Will you ceive; for I do not know what plain speak have conciliated the Catholic peasantry? ing is if it be not found in the words which I am not here to put forward any plea I have put upon the Notice Paper. We which I do not believe to be sound, and I affirm two propositions one of which I admit that these Resolutions, or rather conceive to require no proof-namely, that what is meant to be conveyed by these some modification, be it what it may, in Resolutions, will find favour among the the status of the Irish Church EstablishCatholic peasantry to a certain extent. ment is to all appearance inevitable; the But do not imagine that you can conciliate other, that for which I have been arguing, and satisfy the Catholic peasantry of Ire- that the question is one for a future and not land by dealing with this Church question for the present Parliament to settle. With alone. The first question with them is the regard to the verbal criticism expended land question, and the land question, in upon the Amendment, I should be quite the mind of a Celtic peasant, means some- prepared to defend my own English, if it thing very different. Behind the question were worth while occupying the time of this of the Church is the land question. Behind House in so doing. But, whatever verbal the land question, again, is the education criticism you may pass upon the earlier question, on which your allies of to-day portion of the Amendment-striking out of will be your most determined opponents consideration, if you will, the first clause to-morrow; and behind them all lies a-it does not affect my argument. We difficulty more grave and permanent than are all free to form our own judgment as any-a difficulty felt at this moment in to what will, or may, or ought to happen almost every civilized country in Europe in the future; but the practical proposition the difficulty of reconciling the modern, remains, and it is on that that the Vote of the Protestant, and liberal (using that the House will be taken. We deny the word not in any party sense) idea of ad- expediency of dealing, or rather of atministrative and social arrangements with tempting to deal, with the question which the totally different notions of both which you bring before us in the present Parliaare held by a devotedly Catholic commu- ment. Then it is asked, "Why not meet nity under the influence and guidance of the Motion by a direct negative, or by the its clergy. This, I know, is touching upon Previous Question?" Simply for this readelicate ground, and I am the more anx- son either one or the other of those ious not to let my argument be warped to a courses would imply, or might possibly be purpose to which I do not apply it. I repeat, considered as implying, that we objected do by all means that which you think right to this question being dealt with at all, in and just. Only guard yourselves against any form or at any time. And that is a that common and tempting fallacy of be- misconstruction against which we reasonlieving that certain political consequences ably desire to guard. We say that the will follow from what you are doing, merely work of the Session is quite sufficient for because from your point of view you think the Session. Whenever action shall appear it right and just that they should. I do to us necessary and possible we shall be not propose to go at this time into the ready to tell you how we are prepared to question of what I individually think ought act. But our case is that at present to be done in the matter of the Irish action is neither necessary nor possible; Church. There will be plenty of oppor- and that being so, we will not by prematunities for that. And it is not a question ture propositions or vague assertions of upon which anyone would wish to speak opinion fetter our own discretion in the unadvisedly or impulsively. But I have future, or interfere with the judgment of seen and heard, and with extreme sur- a reformed House of Commons. That is our position, which we submit with full confidence both to the judgment of the House and of the country. Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "House" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "while admitting that considerable modifications in the temporalities of the United Church in Ireland may, after the pending inquiry, appear to be expedient, is of opinion that any proposition tending to the disestablishment or disendowment of that Church ought to be reserved for the decision of a new Parliament,"-(Lord Stanley,) -instead thereof. Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." MR. E. A. LEATHAM said: I approach the consideration of this great branch of the question of Ireland, especially in its relation to Irish disaffection, with great diffidence and without the high hopes of political consequences which appear to actuate some. Do what we will, establish or disestablish what we please, endow or disendow what we may, I fear that the youngest Member of this House will never live to see Ireland what she might have been if our ancestors in their dealings with her people had not read backwards every precept of Christianity and every postulate of policy. But, by the magnitude of the wrongs which Ireland has sustained in the past, we are able to measure the strides which we have already made in the direction of restitution and right. It is true that we have taken nearly a century in learning to be just; but what is there in the condition of Ireland now to excite disaffection compared with the state of things less than a century ago? Then no Irish Catholic could inherit a single acre of land, discharge the humblest and simplest duties of the political citizen, fill any office of emolument or trust, exercise a single liberal profession, teach a child. Irish manufactures were shut out of this country by law, and, from one end of Ireland to the other, tithe was exacted by force of arms and with perpetual shedding of blood. Now, to say, as has been said, that the feeling against us in Ireland is as intense as ever it was seems to me not only to fly in the face of fact, but to utter a positive satire upon all that has been done. For if, after all these ameliorations, there is no amelioration in the fierceness of her attitude towards us, then, taking for granted as we must that the bond between the two countries is indissoluble, the question which will present itself to some minds is not whether we have done enough but whether we have not done too much, whether we have not loosened our grip without tightening our embrace. But, Sir, they are not the best friends of Ireland who propagate these exaggerations. As injustice has abated so, too, has abated the sense of injustice. With the sense of injustice have abated the force and courage of sedition. Will anyone compare the vagaries of Fenianism with the outbreaks of former times? So long as you have two rival races and two hostile creeds face to face-so long as you have bitter memories on the one side and an arrogant assumption of superiority, backed by law, upon the other, so long will you have precisely that atmosphere in which disaffection de lights to breed; but in proportion as you remove inequalities-in proportion as you do away with any unfair advantage which one race or one creed enjoys to the detriment of the other, depend upon it you will strengthen that love of order which is an instinct in the whole human family, and which becomes a powerful and prevailing instinct in proportion as laws are just, and men are active, prosperous, and free. What, then, is the class of measures to which we ought to trust in attempting to deal by legislative enactment with Irish discontent? Not, I think, to those whose authors profess to cure everything by a single stroke, nor yet to those whose aim is merely to tide over the crisis of the moment, but to measures which, while they are gradual in their operation, are at the same time safe and sure. We must purify the airwe must give free play to the healing force of nature we must remove those conditions which are the perpetual source of mischief. Is it not simple folly to hope for lasting tranquillity in Ireland while we leave standing in every parish a staring monument of everything which it is essential should be forgotten? The Irish Catholic can scarcely leave his own door without breaking his shins-I beg pardon for the homeliness of the phrase-over an institution which reminds him at every turn that he belongs to a subjugated race, and, moreover, one which is still made to wear a portion of its fetters in public. existence of the Irish Church-the Church of a pitiful minority, regarded with hostility by the great bulk of the population, but fed publicly and ostentatiously from the proceeds of their industry-the existence of a Church alien this is not my - The epithet — parasitical, scandalous, yet still we disendow the Irish Church, we shall supreme, gives the lie to those who say have established a fatal precedent against we have abolished the inequality of race, the endowment of the Church of England. and we have effaced the brand of con- I deny the parallelism of the two cases. quest. It is impossible to take another Place the Church of England in the same step forward in the way of pacification position in relation to the mass of the powhile you leave this lion of Protestant as- pulation in England as that which is occucendancy still in the path. But, Sir, if pied by the Church of Ireland in relation these inequalities are to be redressed, in to the population there-and does any one what spirit are they to be redressed? I believe that the Church of England, in the listened with the greatest possible pleasure face of the wide and free suffrage which to what fell from the right hon. Gentleman you have given to the people, could enin this relation, for it is not in the spirit dure for a single Session of Parliament ? of a conqueror that we must proceed to But the Church of Ireland is a Missionary exorcise the spirit of conquest. The fall Church, and therefore it is to be protected. must come, but let it be broken by every Now, you have other Protestant Churches means in our power. But, Sir, the case in Ireland which are Missionary Churches. is not to be met by a partition of revenues. but which are not established by the State, You may joint-stock a private firm. You There are nearly 200 parishes in Ireland cannot joint-stock a National Church. For in which there is not a single Churchman what is the fundamental notion of a Na--but in how many parishes does the House tional Church? Is it not an assumption suppose that the Church of Ireland has of orthodoxy patented and guaranteed by gained a footing since the year 1834? In the State? But you cannot have half-a-five. What have the other Protestant dozen true faiths. And if this principle Churches been doing? The Presbyterians be sanctioned in Ireland, what is to prevent a general scramble for the revenues of the Church of England?-and when that scramble takes place who can consistently withhold his share from Mormon? Now, Sir, let me say a few words with reference to the arguments which are ad duced on behalf of the Irish Establishment. We are told that it is a corporate body, and that it has inherited its property from another corporate body the Roman Catholic Church-and that, therefore, that property must not be disturbed. But putting on one side the fact that there has been a formidable break in the succession, it may, I think, be matter of doubt whether the Irish Church has a right to the full privileges of a corporate body, because there must have been an original and vital flaw in the constitution of a National Church which has never been able to identify itself with the nation. But even if we grant the existence of these privileges, we have still excellent authority for disendowment. What does Archbishop Whately say upon this point? "I freely acknowledge," he says "That the State has a right to take away the property of all or any of these corporations-indemnifying, of course, those individuals actually enjoying the revenue-whenever the manifest inutility or hurtfulness of the institutions renders their abolition important to the public welfare”circumstances which we maintain have actually arisen. But it is contended that if have gained during the same period a footing in 623 parishes, and "other Dissenters" in 526. So much for the efforts of this Missionary Church. Now, before this debate commenced two hon. Gentlemen opposite proceeded to knock us down with the 5th Article of the Act of Union and the Coronation Oath. I listened attentively to the 5th Article, but I failed to hear a single word about temporalities. And if I had, surely the Legislature is competent to undo what it has done. As regards the Coronation Oath, it is difficult to reply to the objection with gravity. Perhaps it is better to do so in the words of Archbishop Whately, who, when it was raised in his presence, is reported to have said, "Why this would give us four Estates of the Realm - King, Lords, Commons, and Oath." Material changes have been made in the Constitution since the Sovereign's accession. To these changes Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to give her Assent, but no one accuses Her Majesty of violating her Coronation Oath. There is one more argument which has been raised in these debates with which I will attempt to deal. It has been said that if we disendow the Irish Church, we shall cause the withdrawal from all parts of the country of a number of useful and amiable gentlemen who at present hold benefices. Hon. Gentlemen treat the Church as though she were a society for the diffusion of useful and amiable gentlemen. But who is proposing that these useful and our successors." Can hon. Gentlemen opamiable gentlemen should leave their posts? posite entirely trust their successors? What Are we to suppose that the moment State in all probability will be the character of aid is withdrawn the Church of Ireland the Parliament which follows this? Will will collapse like a punctured wind-bag? it be distinguished by the qualities which Is this what is meant by the force of Pro- grace the Benches opposite? Will it be a testantism in Ireland? Is this the result peculiarly cautious Parliament, full of reof 300 years' petting and coddling by the verence for the past and of anxiety about State? Now, in the course of these re- the future? or will it be a Parliament of marks, I have said nothing about the buoyant hopes-a Parliament which walks abuses which I will not say have crept by faith rather than by sight? But, is into the Irish Church, but marched into it this exactly the kind of Parliament to with head erect. I have avoided all such which to entrust a question requiring great reference for two reasons first, because delicacy of touch, a nice regard for the any such allusion is calculated to embitter rights of vested interests, a gentle handthis controversy; and secondly, because ling of prejudices, and of those better and any such allusion is altogether beside the nobler predilections which, if they belong mark. For it is not the pruning knife that to the family of prejudice at all, are at we are asking for, it is the axe; it is not least its most reputable members? I am reform, but disendowment. But let me quite of the noble Lord's opinion that the say a few words before I sit down with new Parliament will be prepared to deal reference to the arguments of the noble with this question, and to deal with it resoLord. The noble Lord (Lord Stanley) lutely. But will it deal with it kindly— tells us that he cannot understand these will it deal with it as we are dealing with Resolutions, and that the right hon. Gen-it-without passion? The hand which you tleman (Mr. Gladstone) has left him in the have enfranchised is vigorous and strong. dark. I imagine that the noble Lord is It will soon be skilful; but, of necessity, the only man in this House who, reading it comes, comparatively speaking, raw to the Resolutions together with the com- its work. The new Parliament must be, mentary of the right hon. Gentleman has not had his eyes opened. But the noble Lord objects that the Resolutions contain no definite plan for the disposal of the revenues of the Irish Church, and therefore refuses to listen to them. But the right hon. Gentleman has told us how he would dispose of at least two-thirds of those revenues. Then the noble Lord proceeded to argue that this Parliament was incompetent to deal with this question at all. Do not let us pronounce so harsh a judgment against ourselves. This Parliament has been thought competent to deal with the most vital and most difficult question that can come before any Parliament; and it has dealt with it in such a manner as to excite the liveliest satisfaction in the bosom of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, and of the jubilant party which he instructs. But the noble Lord says that we are about to die. Do not let the serenity of the closing scene be disturbed by distressing importunities. Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die. But I have always understood that it was precisely upon their death-beds that people were brought to a due sense of their responsibilities. But," says the noble Lord, "we have made our wills; we have handed over everything to in one sense, a 'prentice Parliament, and disestablishment, disendowment — but disestablishment and disendowment in the gentlest, fairest, most indulgent way. And what is the alternative if you reject these Resolutions? A year's fierce agitation in Ireland. A year's angry recrimination in England. A year's passion. One would have thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite had had enough of popular agitation. Two years ago another great question oc |