HL Deb 18 March 1844 vol 73 cc1164-75
Earl Fitzwilliam

said, he had a petition to present to their Lordships, signed by the chairman of what he understood to have been a very numerous meeting of the inhabitants of Glasgow; and the petitioners prayed the consideration of their Lordships of the several points to which they alluded in the course of their petition. They referred, for the grounds upon which they exercised their right of addressing their Lordships, to the state of that country, which they said exhibited a great number of features indicative of a very unwholesome state of the body politic in that country, and one very eminently calculated to excite the utmost alarm; exhibiting an absentee and non-resident Gentry, an uneducated and discontented pauper population, inveterate religious animosities, insecurity of person and property, a contempt for the existing laws and institutions, and a growing hatred of all connexion with Great Britain. Making a little allowance for the exaggerations which were likely to prevail at meetings of large bodies, where the feeling of each individual tended to excite the feeling entertained by others, there was no doubt that the points to which the petitioners referred, were of the greatest possible importance. The petitioners concluded their statement of the grounds upon which they founded their petition with one remarkable proposition, upon which he should take the liberty of addressing a few words to their Lordships. They stated that one of the principal grievances of which Ireland had to complain, was the existence of the Established Church, which was not only exclusive and intolerant in its spirit and character, but was opposed to the consciences of the great body of the people, who viewed it. as a tool of political fiction, and subversive of general tranquillity; and that such an Establishment (and this was the important part of their prayer)—that such an Establishment did not admit of being amended, but that, in order to obtain the pacification of Ireland, it must be wholly abolished. It sometimes happened that when a noble Lord presented a petition to that House, he agreed in all the sentiments winch the petition professed to convey, but his opinion on this section of the present petition was entirely different from that of the petitioners. He was by no means of opinion that the Church of England ought to be abolished in Ireland; on the contrary, he thought that the Established Church ought to be rendered inure effective for the only true purposes for which it could be designed, namely, the administration of spiritual and religious comfort to that portion of the people to which they were adapted; but he thought the Government of this country had been guilty of a great crime in not providing fur the administration of spiritual and religious comfort to the people of Ireland. The great offence of the Legislature of this country was, that for 150 years they had proscribed the Roman Catholic priesthood, and deprived the great body of the people of any legal right to the administration of religious services. He did not apprehend that there would be any such great difficulty in removing that evil. The difficulty complained of was not the difficulty of the matter itself, but it arose from the prejudices of those who had influence in the government of Ireland. When he spoke of those who had influence in the government, he did not of course mean the half dozen gentlemen who sat on the opposite side, but the great governing power of the general British community; because those who sat upon the opposite bench were only the representatives of that public feeling which they professed to govern, but which all who governed must follow in some degree in order that they might draw it after them. He was told that the Roman Catholics themselves would not consent to anything like an endowment from the State, while such a measure would be distasteful to the English people, and excite the hostility of the Dissenters, and of the whole North of Ireland. But, however distasteful to the people of England such schemes might be—although such schemes might be distasteful to the Protestants of England and Ireland, yet he must remark that those who passed through life were exposed to many disagreeable things from the hour of birth to the hour of death, and that nations were not exempt from the lot to which individuals were subject. We might be obliged to submit to many things which were disagreeable to its: the Scotch Presbyterian might be obliged to submit to things that; were disagreeable to himself; the English Dissenter might he obliged to submit to things that were disagreeable; and the Irish Catholic might be subjected to things more distaste-hit still, if he were not inured to what was disagreeable by the legislation of England; ay, and what the Church of England herself might be reduced to feel sometimes doomed to abate some little of that authority—some little of that dominance—which with all the merits of those who administered her functions, had been a stain upon her character; and the heads of that Church might be brought to feel that there was something even more disagreeable still than the being brought to give up a small portion of that which had hitherto appertained to that sect, of which they were the ministers and the ornaments; for notwithstanding a rebuke which he had once received from a right reverend prelate, who did not often deal in rebuke, and to whom he was sure it must have been disagreeable to administer any medicine of that kind—he must, nevertheless, persevere in maintaining that even the Church of England itself was a sect. That was only one sect: the Roman Catholics of Ireland were another sect; the Presbyterians of Scotland were another; and the Independents of England constituted another. These were all different sects, and it would perhaps be a bitter pill to that sect which had hitherto been dominant to feel that the time was not far distant when some portion of those resources which had hitherto been devoted exclusively to the services of their own religion must be given up—as they ought to be given up, if the object were to act justly to the people of that country—for the maintenance of other religious establishments. He would be bound to say that if the experiment were tried—at least he had a little suspicion that if something in the nature of an Establishment were offered to the Irish Roman Catholic, he would not be disposed to reject it. But let him warn their lordships against any attempt at making the Irish Roman Catholic priesthood a stipendiary priesthood or pensioners upon the Government. That would not do. He had heard—and he supposed there must be some truth in what was stated, although of the details he knew nothing—but it was rumoured that the Government had not been entirely asleep on this question, and that they had some plan floating in their minds—something under consideration with respect to the maintenance of the priesthood in the sister island. He had not heard the details of those plans, but what he protested against was the principle of maintaining the Catholic priesthood as pensioners and stipendiaries upon the will of the Government. If any thing was to be done—and Ireland had great claims for something—the Protestant rector and the Roman Catholic priest must be placed upon precisely the same footing—they must both be made to feel that they had an interest in the soil; one must not be taught to consider himself to be a superior, and assume the airs of a superior, while the other felt himself an inferior, and felt all the shame and degradation of his inferiority. Far be it from him to wish that there should be recommended to Parliament any system which should not recognize the perfect equality of the two great sects into which that country was divided. For his own part he saw no great difficulty in accomplishing it; but if men, instead of being sectarians, would only be Christians—if they would recollect that some 150 years ago, the whole of the ecclesiastical property of Ireland was confiscated and torn from those who had been its original possessors, and appropriated to other purposes, he apprehended there was no man in that House so visionary—however successful the experiment might have been if tried at a former period—but he believed there was no man visionary enough to contend, that after six or eight generations had passed away, there was any tendency in the maintenance of the Established Church, to convert the Irish Papist to Protestantism. If ever that vision had presented itself to the mind of any man—and that it had prevailed at the close of the seventeenth century, he entertained no doubt —if that vision had ever existed, it must long since have vanished. Years had rolled over, generations had passed away, and not the slightest inroad was made upon Catholicism in Ireland. On the contrary, while of course the absolute numbers of Roman Catholics in that country was greater, he believed that in proportion they were more numerous than they had been. A noble Friend of his near him said there could be no doubt that the proportion of Roman Catholics to Protestants was increased. If any inference was to be drawn from that fact—he did not draw the inference—but if any was to be drawn, it would be that the existence of the Protestant Church in Ireland, so far from tending to extend the boundaries of the Protestant Church, was rather calculated to extend those of the other sect. He said he did not draw that inference—he did not desire to draw it—but this he would say, that justice to Ireland—justice to the people of Ireland—justice to the religious people of Ireland, required that the whole ecclesiastical property of Ireland should no longer be taken and applied to the service of one sect only, and that sect the most wealthy, and, consequently, the best able, even if it were not endowed with ecclesiastical property, the best able to provide means for those ministrations of religion to which the ecclesiastical property of a country ought to be adequate. He wished, therefore, to see the ecclesiastical property of Ireland applied to the maintenance of the priesthood—if he might be allowed to use the term priesthood—of both sects. To hear some persons speak of Ireland, one would suppose that there was nothing but Roman Catholics in Ireland; and to hear others you would think there was nothing but Protestants; and perhaps those who argued as if there were none but Protestants had the best justification for their error, because they had only to read the Acts of Parliament which constituted that penal code which was the disgrace of England—they had only to read those acts to find that the Legislature of this country not only wished to annihilate the Catholic religion in Ireland, but had proceeded upon the assumption that there did not exist such a creature as an Irish Papist, and, therefore, they were perhaps more justified in their reasoning than if in talking of Ireland they represented that there was nothing but Catholics there. But some one would say, "Oh, but this won't be done this session." No, he did not suppose it would be done this session, nor perhaps next session, but their Lordships might depend upon it that the people of this country who were most prejudiced against an alteration must make up their minds to something being done. This might be a Roman Catholic question in another form—indeed it was a Catholic question in another form. Twenty years might pass away, but it was as sure to be done as when the Union was carried it was certain that Catholic Emancipation must follow. There were wiseacres who said that that question ought to have been settled—in the other House he had heard wise men say that it ought to have been settled soon after the Union, whether the Roman Catholics were to carry their point, or to remain in their hopeless and degraded state—that this ought to have been settled. Why, there were some sorts of questions which could only be settled in one way. There were some which you might settle in one way or in another way, but there were some questions which you could settle only in one way, and the Catholic question was one of them, and the question upon which he was now addressing a few words to their Lordships was another. They might depend upon it that they could not maintain an exclusive Church in Ireland. The day was gone by for that. Far be it from him to entertain a wish that the Protestant Church in Ireland was gone. So far from that, he wished to see the Protestant Church maintained—he wished to see every Protestant parish maintained—to see the property of every parish maintained, and all parochial property applied parochially. He would have nothing to do with spoliation, or with taking away the property of minor communities, and throwing it all into one hotch-potch, for the Government to dispose of as they thought proper. That was not the way to deal with the sub-communities. That was a system of centralization which would be contrary to equity, to justice, and to sound policy. It was one of the maxims of civil government not to embrace all the property of minor communities in one fund, and he would have nothing to do with such a species of centralization. It was essential to liberty—it was essential to freedom that the minor communities should be maintained; and it was therefore essential that the parochial property of Ireland and of England should be maintained, and not rendered to be doled out by the ministers—he meant the religious ministers—in the way which the administration for the time being might think fit. He was sanguine on this subject, although he did not expect to see his desires accomplished very soon; but he was sanguine in the belief that the object could be very easily effected if men would shake oil their prejudices. That, perhaps, was one of the most difficult things for a man to do, but he entertained a hope that the people of England and of Scotland would not furnish an argument in favour of Repeal. He did not wish for a repeal of the Union; then let not their Lordships furnish the strongest arguments in its favour, by showing that they were insensible to the wants of the Irish people, and were too prejudiced to govern them as they ought to be governed. Let them show that they were not prejudiced—let them act upon the principles of justice to all—not surrendering everything to one party, but giving to each what each ought to have. These might be difficult things to accomplish, but they were difficult because we surrendered ourselves to our prejudices, and were not disposed to govern others on the principles upon which we desired to be governed ourselves. Disagreeing, as he had said he did, from one very important part of the prayer of the petition, he had felt it necessary to explain how far he was disposed to go—not in abolishing the Church of England in Ireland, but rather in strengthening its foundation and enabling it to resist those attacks which their Lordship's might depend upon it would otherwise be directed, and which, if they trusted to the experience of other times, they must feel would be not unsuccessfully directed against it.

The Duke of Wellington.

My Lords, I must say, there can be nothing more inconvenient than the discussion of such large questions as the noble Lord has entered on in the speech which he has just delivered upon the mere presentation of a petition. My Lords, those questions related riot merely to the topics contained in that petition, to the state of the Protestant religion in Ireland, or to the compacts that were entered into for the maintenance of that religion in Ireland, but they referred to the very foundation of the Reformation in this country, and the noble Lord has propounded to your Lordships a something, neither the nature of which, nor the period at which it is to be carried into execution, is he himself exactly certain of. Something or other must be done; to that something this country must make up its mind; the noble Lord does not state what it is to be; but it is, at all events, to involve the repeal of those laws upon which the Reformation in this country has been founded. My Lords, I have already taken opportunities of warning your Lordships against the assertion of such doctrines in this House, and I must again express a hope that you will observe and beware how they are introduced into it, because you may rely upon it, that there is not an individual in this country, be his religious opinions what they may, be his position what it may, who is not interested in the maintenance of the Reformation. Not only our whole system of religion, but our whole system of religious toleration, in which so many people in this country are interested, depends upon the laws on which the Reformation was founded; and I therefore entreat your Lordships to give no encouragement to doctrines that might induce a belief that there existed in this House any indifference upon the subject of those laws. With respect to the Church of Ireland, I beg of your Lordships to recollect that the Protestant Church in Ireland, has existed in that country for a period of nearly 300 years; that it was maintained in that country during a century of contests, rebellions, and massacres; that during a contest for the possession of the Crown, the Protestants of that country encountered that contest and kept possession of their Church; that during another century it was maintained through much opposition, and under difficulties of all descriptions; and that at the period of the Union the Parliament, who had the power either to consent to the Union, or to refuse their consent, stipulated that the Protestant Church in Ireland should be maintained, and maintained on the same footing as the Protestant Church of England in this country. My Lords, the Parliament of Ireland had, under the auspices of the King of this country, the power of either making or not making that compact. Your Lordships entered into that compact with the Parliament of Ireland, and I entreat you never to lose sight of the fact. I entreat you not to suffer yourselves to be prevailed on to make any alteration in, or to depart in the slightest degree from, the terms of that compact, so long as you intend to maintain the Union between this country and Ireland. It is the foundation upon which the Union rests—it is a compact which you entered into with the Parliament of Ireland, and from which you cannot depart without being guilty of a breach of faith, worse than those which had been referred to in other countries; worse than those pecuniary breaches of faith which have been alluded to in the course of the discussion which took place in your Lordships' House this evening upon another subject. I entreat you to listen to none of these petitions or speeches which tend to the injury or the destruction of the Church in Ireland. Do what may be necessary—do what it may be proper to do, in order to render that Church more beneficial to the people of that country—but I entreat you to adhere strictly, in spirit and according to the letter, to the compact you have made, and not permit it to be supposed in any quarter whatever that you entertain the most distant intention of departing, in the slightest degree, from that arrangement. The noble Lord says, that the feeling of this country at the present moment is in favour of that arrangement. I sincerely hope that it is so, and that as long as there is a spark of honour in the country the same feeling will continue to be evinced in every part of it. The noble Lord has also stated, and truly, that before the mind of the country can change so far as to induce it to depart from that compact, it must first be made up to undermine the foundation of the Reformation in this country. While waiting for the scheme which, according to the noble Lord, is to be carried out—God knows when—I must again entreat your Lordships not to think of violating the compact into which you have entered for the preservation of the Church in Ireland.

Earl Fitzwilliam

said, the noble Duke had a little misstated what he had said in representing him to have expressed a desire to subvert the laws on which the Reformation was founded. He had never said any such thing. He had never thought of anything of the kind. What he had said was, that tithe and other ecclesiastical property in every parish might be devoted to the payment of the Catholic as well as the Protestant clergy, and how that had anything to do with subverting the laws of the Reformation he was at a loss to conceive. But the speech of the noble Duke reminded him of speeches he had heard in the other House of Parliament; and he dared to say similar speeches had been made in their Lordships' House some twenty-five or thirty years ago, with respect to the Coronation Oath, and other fine subjects, which were not to be touched; and he would venture, with all submission, and with that high respect which he entertained for the noble Duke, to place his speech of to-night in the same category. He had no doubt the time would come—precisely when, he did not know—when, notwithstanding all the warnings given by the noble Duke, whether the noble Duke himself, or somebody else following his example, or the noble Duke, following the example which he himself had set in 1829, he had no more doubt than that he was then standing on the floor of that House, that, by some one or other, some arrangement would be proposed—it might be better or it might be worse—for the establishment and payment of the Roman Catholic priesthood in Ireland, and giving them an interest in the stability of Christian Churches in that country.

The Bishop of Exeter

begged to tender to the noble Earl his sincere thanks for having contributed so largely to the stability of the Church of Ireland, to the confidence of the Protestants of that country, to the gratification of the Protestants of England and all Christendom, by having drawn forth the most valuable speech of the noble Duke; and yet, while he rejoiced at that declaration, he must say, the subject had come upon him quite by surprise. The notice given by the noble Earl was merely of the presentation of a Petition from Glasgow, on the condition of Ireland, and he did not imagine, therefore, that any of their Lordships had been prepared for the matters which had been brought forward by the noble Earl. He had no wish to detain their Lordships for any length of time, but he desired to make a few observations on one or two points referred to by the noble Earl. The noble Earl had said, with much emphasis, "I will have nothing to do with spoliation;" and was perfectly amazed that his speech should be characterised as tending to destroy the principles of the Reformation; and the noble Earl had appeared somewhat entertained, either with his own wit or what had fallen from the noble Duke. What explanation had the noble Earl given? Only this, that spoliation would be to take the parochial property and centralize it. The noble Earl said:—"I'll have nothing to do with that—the ecclesiastical property of a parish should be employed for the ecclesiastical purposes of a parish, and should be divided between the Roman Catholic priests and the Protestant clergymen;" the meaning of which was, that the Protestant rector must give up such a portion of the Church-pro- perty as would satisfy the noble Earl, in order to widow the Roman Catholic priest. And the noble Earl wished their Lordships to suppose, that such a proceeding would not be spoliation. [A laugh from Earl Fitzwilliam.] The noble Earl seemed quite amused at the notion of spoliation; but possibly spoliation might, in the course of events, assume a form much less amusing to the noble Earl. Suppose the Church to be robbed of the property which it held, on the most sacred principle and sanction, how long would other sorts of property continue safe? Suppose, instead of the proposition in hand, the lay lords who had been enriched with vast possessions in that country by confiscations, of which the noble Earl had said something, were to be forced to disgorge that property in order to meet the wants of the poor in the parishes where it was situated; if he (the Bishop of Exeter) were to advocate such a proposition as that, he should be doing that which was opposed to his notion of common honesty; but, if he were to suggest it, he should certainly adopt the language of the noble Earl and say—"I will have no carrying off the property to distant places; oh, no! I will have no centralization: but I will confine the distribution of the money so acquired to the parishes whence it arises, and not let it be lavished by thousands and tens of thousands upon noblemen who spend it in Yorkshire or London." No, he (the Bishop of Exeter) should say, after the manner of the noble Earl:—"We divide the money among the poor of the respective parishes, who would certainly have as much right to it as the Church of Rome had to the property of the Church of Ireland." Was the Church the only body that despoiled, to use the language of the noble Earl? Portions of the lands forfeited to the Crown had been granted to the Church. But were the ecclesiastics of Ireland the only persons that built palaces, and fattened on the produce of the confiscations of former days? The noble Earl himself held property of that description, and so did another noble Earl near him, who so largely employed his property in benefiting the country whence it was so largely derived, and who resided amongst the people of that country. He should not have said so much on the subject, had not the observations been drawn from him by what had fallen from the noble Earl. A noble Marquess near the noble Earl was much in the same position as to the possession of property forfeited in the rebel- lions of two centuries ago. These three Noblemen alone held a larger amount of such property in Ireland than all the revenues of the Irish Church in any three counties that could be named there. It was not the way to do justice to Ireland to deprive the Church of the property which it held there on the security of the same laws which enabled these noble personages now to enjoy the fruits of the spoliation which had operated in their favour several centuries ago. He could not feel that the noble Earl had acted safely, prudently, or judiciously, in making the remarks he had put forward. Perhaps the noble Earl might consider it patriotism; if so, let the noble Earl give practical proof of his patriotism, by disgorging the confiscated property which he himself had so long held, and his ancestors before him; let him do this tardy justice, for justice he must consider it, if he thought the principles sound which he had enunciated as to the confiscated property held by the Church. The noble Earl had acted as a monitor on the present occasion; nay, he had gone further, and actually turned prophet. Perhaps the noble Earl would also allow him (the Bishop of Exeter) to turn prophet for the nonce, and, so permitted, he would venture this prophecy, that if the noble Earl's plan should take effect in Ireland, there would be a very short interval in deed, between the distribution of the Church property, which the noble Earl suggested, and the spoliation, as he would call it, of lay property. He begged to offer his heartfelt thanks to the noble Duke for the declaration he had made. Providence had enabled the noble Duke to confer great services on his country, and not the least had been conferred on the present occasion.

House adjourned.