sion. He knew their zeal for liberty; but he also knew that it was zeal with knowledge. While they would oppose any unnecessary inroad on the rights of any portion of their fellow-subjects, they would, though they regretted its necessity, not object to a measure which, while it temporarily suspended the Constitution, did so only that it might not be wholly endangered by anarchy. He would willingly render them an account of his conduct, satisfied that they were too sincerely attached to true liberty, and too enlightened, not to distinguish between it and that unbridled. license which could end only in the worst of slavery. Whatever might be the result of the opinions he had expressed, he would abide by them. He had made up his mind on the subject. He might become the victim of popular injustice, but he would never condescend to be its flatterer.

230

CHURCH REFORM, IRELAND.*

APRIL 1, 1833.

In Committee on the plan for regulating the temporalities of the Church of Ireland.

He had two species of opposition to contend against—that of those hon. Gentlemen who did not conceive the Bill went far enough, and that of those who either considered that it went too far, or of those who believed that such a measure never should have been entered upon at all. Now, with respect to the first, he was glad, at least, to learn from the hon. and learned Member opposite, that the Bill was satisfactory so far as it went, and that it would not have, in fact, been equally judicious, if at present it did go further. On this opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman he was willing to rest his defence of the Ministers for having gone no further. He was heartily glad that the hon. and learned member for Tipperary had withdrawn his notice of Motion, which stood upon the books; and he wished sincerely that that hon. and learned Gentleman's example might prevail with others, and induce them in like manner to withdraw the Motions they had announced. He conceived that it was a matter of extremé importance that this measure should be carried;, and he felt that the difficulty of carrying it would be most considerably increased if it were made stronger. He consequently should, if it were necessary, feel no difficulty in moving the previous question, should the hon. Member not consent to withdraw his Amendment.

* Hansard, 3d Series, vol. xvi. p. 1383-1393.

He had now, however, to approach the other species of opposition against which he had to contend, and which was much the more formidable of the two-namely, that the Bill went too far, or rather, that it proceeded on an erroneous principle. Among those who had supported this view of the subject, the hon. and learned member for Dover had contended, that if his Majesty should give his sanction to this measure, it would be given in direct violation of his Coronation Oath. The hon. and learned Member also said, that this measure was a violation of the rights of the Church, and of the rights of property. The argument respecting the Coronation Oath was urged when the questions of the Catholic Emancipation and the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts were before the House, and he had thought that that argument had been so completely refuted on those occasions, that it would not have been brought forward again. He was, however, prepared to show that the objection had no force. It was perfectly clear, from the words of the oath, that they could not bear the construction the hon. and learned Member had put upon them. What was the oath that the King would maintain for the Church" all such rights as do, or by law shall appertain to the Church." The whole force of the passage rested on the word "shall." another part of the oath his Majesty says, "We declare to govern all our people according to the Statutes agreed to in Parliament;" but surely that did not mean that his Majesty swore to govern by the Statutes actually in existence at the moment he came to the Throne. Certainly not; for if that were the sense of the passage, every Act of Parliament to which the Sovereign gave his consent, in the course of his reign, would be an act of perjury upon his part. How much less, then, was there any doubt of the wording with respect to the rights and privileges of the Church! The was, the passage was introduced into the oath for the purpose of guarding the Church against such acts as those which James 2nd exercised as head of the Church. The present measure con

fact

In

templated no interference of that kind with the Church, and it was perfectly clear to him, that the oath had not the smallest reference to the conduct of the King in his legislative capacity, and did not bar him from giving his assent to any measure agreed to by both Houses of Parliament. Allusion had been made to the articles of the Union as if they established Church of Ireland. the Union were, that "the doctrine, discipline, worship and government of the Church are to be maintained in both countries unchanged." If this measure were passed, all those things would be unchanged. No alteration was to be made in the Articles, the Book of Common Prayer was untouched, and the discipline would still be episcopal, the Archbishops and Bishops would retain all their authority, and the doctrine and discipline would be unaltered. Would it be said, that the union of certain sees in Ireland made any difference in the doctrine, discipline, worship, or government of the Church? He should suppose not. If so, all the fundamental principles of the government of the Church of England were compromised by the junction between the sees of Lichfield and Coventry. Nor were they destroying the Church of Ireland by arrangements contained in the Bill for a different distribution of church property. Such arrangements had been frequently made by the Legislature. The present case was a parallel to the case of London after the fire. The number of parishes then destroyed was eighty-seven, and soon afterwards an Act passed by which they were consolidated, and reduced to fiftyone, and a commutation of tithes for a fixed money-payment was also ordained. Indeed local Acts of a similar description were continually passed, and every one of them was as much the destruction of the Church of England as this Bill would be, were it to become a law to-morrow. It had next been asserted that the rights of property had been attacked by this Bill; this, he maintained, was an assertion; if it could be proved, he would give up

prevented any change in the The words of the 5th article of

the Bill. The right of property was of immense importance. To preserve that, Kings, and Parliaments, and Coronation Oaths, all existed. For that alone, law was made. Admitting the momentous nature of this consideration, he denied, that the rights of property had been attacked by the framers of the Bill. No necessity existed which should induce Ministers to infringe on those sacred rights. On the contrary, Ministers felt bound to defend to the utmost the institution of property, believing, as they did, that it was to that institution mankind were indebted for the origin and the progress of civilization-believing that it was in consequence of that institution that we were not now, like our rude ancestors, naked and painted bodies, savages feeding upon acorns and sheltering ourselves in caves. They felt, however, at the same time, that in the institution of property there were many anomalies and evils; and yet these anomalies and evils were not only willingly, but cheerfully borne by the many, in consideration of the manifold blessings which the institution of property conferred upon society at large. He would admit, too, that the anomalies in the distribution of the property of the Church of Ireland were not greater than in the distribution of lay property in other countries. It was an anomaly, that a young man who had never served the commonwealth either with head or hand should hold possession of half a county, while other men who had deserved well of the State in arts and arms, were left without an acre; and yet this was cheerfully endured by all, rather than derange the settled order of things. This was as great an anomaly as existed between the Revenues of the Archbishop of Armagh and the poorest working curate. But, as mankind found no argument in the former for attacking all property, so the latter could apply no inducement to attack the property of the Irish Church. But, the more sacred he regarded the right of property, the more care did it require that the right should not be enfeebled and contaminated by abuses. It was by protecting the abuses with which it was