Page images
PDF
EPUB

them. They are dissatisfied, it is said, with their leader, because he is impartial. Were he to flatter Orange hopes and prejudices, and to deny to Roman Catholics their due share of official favour, his party in Ireland would be as numerous and as staunch as it was in the days of his highest popularity; but because he has endeavoured to deal equal justice to all, and to govern for a people, not a party, partizans have fallen from him. This is most unjust. At this moment it would probably be found, that, among the supporters of the minister, none have been more unwavering than those who are accused the most sharply of deserting him, namely, what might be termed the Orange section of the Conservative party. But we should be ashamed of arguing a question like this.

The

conduct of Irish Protestants of all ranks and conditions has abundantly disproved the charge against them. They knew the difficulties of the prime minister's position, and, instead of complaining because they had not an ampler share of patronage and favour than that to which they were entitled, they suffered much without remonstrance or complaint, because they felt that, in the very peculiar circumstances in which the government was placed, it could not redress their wrongs, unless at a risk, or perhaps a loss, greater than they were willing to see hazarded. We leave the subjectit is one which, at this moment, we could not thoroughly examine without prejudice to some interest which we respect and will content ourselves with observing, that, if self-seekers only have fallen from Sir Robert Peel's ranks, he and the country may be well pleased that they are unmasked and can do little further harm; but if the true-hearted and the wise have recoiled or remonstrated, the policy which has caused their distrust or fear ought to re-considered, and their arguments against it weighed with a most serious attention. The apprehensions of Irish Conservatives, dissatisfied with the policy of government, may be reasonable or may be groundless: none who believe them real can think them unworthy of being cared for. The following passage, extracted from a speech of the Recorder of Dublin, faithfully

describes them:

"He (Mr. Shaw) could assure his

noble friend (Lord Eliot) and every member of the Irish government, that he entertained for them every personal respect and good will; he appreciated the courtesy and the high and honourable bearing of his noble friend (Lord Eliot), but men who felt their properties, their families, their houses, and everything they valued, to be at stake, could not afford to bow and compliment those away (cheers); and if his noble friend, and those with whom he acted in the Irish government, would stand with folded arms upon what was that night called the 'do-nothing system,' and look on quietly at such agitation as was then disporting itself in Ireland, on the very brink of outbreak and revolution (hear, hear), when the slightest casualty, an intemperate word, or hasty expression, or premature sign on the part of the leaders of that movement, might precipitate the whole country into a depth of outrage, and bloodshed, and ruin, which no human eye could fathom (cheers)then the government must not be surprised if the loyal and peaceable subjects of the Crown felt uneasiness and alarm, and a want of that confidence which a firm government and vigorous administration of the law could alone inspire under the present circumstances in Ire. land (cheers)."

While

We shall by-and-by return to the case of the dissentient Conservatives; for the present we turn to dissentients of a different description. Conservatives complain that Sir Robert Peel will not defend the legislative union against its enemies, by suppressing with a strong hand the unconstitutional agitation through which they hope for success, there are others who insist that he ought to adopt a more pliant policy; and that, instead of compelling the disaffected to renounce their pernicious enterprise, he should bribe them into an abandonment of it by concessions which would imply faithlessness in the party granting and the party accepting. If, on the one hand, Sir Robert Peel disappoints men of principle by refusing the advice they offer, to maintain the Union and the articles of Union by measures of severity towards all who would disturb either, he offends, on the other hand, men of no principle, by rejecting their counsel also that of guarding the benefits of union to England, by violating the conditions of the great national compact on which it was obtained. In this latter case we believe the policy of Sir Robert Peel to be not less expe

dient than it is obviously just and honourable. We do not believe that the Union can be maintained by a violation of its articles. The breach of faith would not satisfy the adversaries of British connection, but rather would encourage them to persevere in the effort to achieve their country's independence; it would disgust the best friends of England, and would remove a barrier which has hitherto prevented many from being absorbed into the masses of the repealers. These reasons had, no doubt, presented themselves long since to our reader's mind; they merit, however, a somewhat ampler exposition.

It is now forty-three years since Great Britain purchased from the legislature of Ireland, then composed exclusively of Protestants (with few exceptions, Protestants of the Church of England), the right and power to legislate for them and their country in the Imperial Parliament. The advantages attendant on this great national settlement were very considerable, and the price paid and promised for them was not, we are bound to say, inadequate. We speak not of the gold profusely lavished to gain the corrupt by bribes; we think of the compact made between the people of two independent countries, of the honour and greatness of England pledged to assure to Ireland and Irish Protestants certain great advantages of which they were found possessed. Foremost among these advantages was the provision made for a religious ministration in the establishment of the Catholic Church. It was, apparently, anomalous, that an establishment, at that time wealthy, should be maintained for the exclusive advantage of a small minority of the people. A legislative union with England, it was promised, would correct this seeming irregula rity. The churches of the two kingdoms were to become one, the two peoples were to be united into one, and the united Church of England and Ireland was to be thenceforth the church of the majority. These assurances were embodied in the articles of Union, of which the fifth declares

"That the Churches of England and Ireland, as now by law established, be united into one Protestant Episcopal Church, to be called the United Church of England and Ireland, and that the doctrine, worship, discipline, and go

vernment of the said United Church shall be, and shall remain, in full force for ever; and that the continuance and preservation of the said United Church, as the Established Church of England and Ireland, shall be deemed and taken to be an essential and fundamental part of the Union: and that, in like manner, the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of the Church of Scotland, shall remain, and be preserved, as the same are now established by law, and by the acts for the union of the two kingdoms of England and Scotland."

Politicians of the calibre of Mr. Ward are capable of making the discovery that this article contains no especial promise with respect to the temporalities of the Established Church in Ireland. They are right :-and what is the value of their discovery, considered in reference to the argument to which they apply it? Simply this that the Articles of Union do not encompass the Irish branch of the Established Church with securities in the benefit of which the Church in England does not participate. Both branches of the Church have the principles of equity and law-the obligations of the coronation oath-and, we may add, the true interests of the country-as guarantees for their rights and possessions-the Church in England, if we confine ourselves to its human defences, has no more-in Ireland has no less. The spirit and purport of the Articles of Union was to ensure this equality to the establishment in Ireland; its purport was to deprive its enemies of that very argument which the partisans of " "appropriation" still affect to find in the comparative amount of the Roman Catholic population.

This argument is doubly viciousvicious in its disregard of the obligations incurred by Irish Roman Catholics as well as of those which have been contracted by the British empire. Although Roman Catholics in Ireland had little political power at the close of the last century, it was thought advisable to secure their acquiescence in the great national settlement of the Union. This was done, to some extent, by making them understand that their interests were likely to be promoted by it. So long as there was a Church of Ireland, maintained by lands and tithes, in a country where the great majority of the people were

of a different communion, holding, or at least accused of holding, principles of extreme intolerance, however strongly they might disclaim and abjure all hostile purposes, their professions would be distrusted, and power, of which they might avail themselves to overthrow an obnoxious establishment, would be withheld from them ;-but so soon as the Irish Church establishment became a part of that of the United Kingdom, and as Ireland sent her quota of representatives to the imperial parliament, the fears and the distrust of Protestants would cease to be reasonable, would be less respected, and, at no distant period, would give way before the ample assurances which Roman Catholics were ready to afford of their neutral dispositions towards the temporalities of the church. was the "Legislative Union" proposed and carried. Its advocates bade Protestants dismiss their fears, and encouraged Romanists to hope.

Thus

The number of Roman Catholics in Ireland was no longer to be a source of danger to a church whose members were to be henceforth computed for the United Kingdom-the supposed principles of Roman Catholics were no longer, after their disclaimers, to furnish arguments against their admission to political power, inasmuch as, in the imperial parliament, their power would be less dangerous. There was this difference, however, and it was very important, between the representations made to Roman Catholics and those by which Protestants were influenced the latter were solemn declarations of the State, embodied in public acts by which England became bound for ever;-the other were inferences, natural, no doubt, and reasonable, from the relations of the new political system to which the union was to give birth, but unaccredited and unauthorised by any competent power, and for which the British nation and its government were wholly irresponsible.

In due

course of time the latter representa-
tion, that which encouraged a hope
without giving a promise, was realised.
Roman Catholics were entrusted with
political power to an extent greater
than they had anticipated, and on
terms far more favorable. They be-
came enabled to legislate for the Church
establishment on condition of abjuring

by a solemn oath all hostility to it,
and swearing that they would not
exercise their newly acquired powers
to its detriment. Their spirit, it is
said, has changed with their condition;
their promises and engagements, it is
said, they now feel too burdensome to
respect any longer; and, because they
are reported to have become faithless
and forsworn, England is invited "to
do likewise." She obtained from the
Protestants of Ireland, by a solemn
promise to protect their rights, the
power to legislate for their country;
by an extraordinary and an extrava-
gant exercise of this power she ad-
mitted their enemies into a participa-
tion of it and now that these enemies
have proved themselves truce-breakers
and false, England is called on, not to
withdraw from them powers which they
had dishonestly obtained, but to imitate
their bad example, by betraying friends
who have confided in her, and who
have loyally defended her interests and
honor through all vicissitudes. Such
is the expedient by which a great na-
tion is advised to relieve itself from
She is recom-
an embarrassment.
mended to retain all the advantages
of the Legislative Union, and to re-
lease herself from its attendant incon-
veniences, by violating engagements to
which she had bound herself for ever.
Within how narrow a space of years
may political eternities be begun and
ended!!

It

But it is not our purpose to moralize. We are to show not that the revolutionary expedient for maintaining the union is unjust and base, but that it would be worse than ineffectual. would encourage, without conciliating, repealers; and it would alienate the best and most disinterested among the We friends of British connection. do not mean to affirm that a breach of contract is, in all instances, criminal, and must be attended in all by calamitous consequences-but, having respect to present times and circumstances, we affirm, without hesitation, that a violation of the Articles of Union would be a grave political We do not like to imagine possible cases in which a breach of contract can be justified. Such cases in general ought not to be imagined. The necessity which enforces, will excuse them: but it is not for the mind of man to anticipate such a

error.

necessity before it has arisen. Anticipations like these, if they become habitual, will have an evil influence on the moral character. It is to be remembered, however, that, when we speak of a breach of contract, our censures apply only to the parties who are guilty of the first violation. If the Irish Protestants have been untrue to their engagements, or if the Established Church in Ireland has been disimproved, we ought, of ourselves, to release England from a duty which our misconduct has rendered it impossible for her to discharge. If the Church has set up new claims, or proposed new articles of faith, we cannot plead our Articles of Union as rendering it obligatory upon England to enforce them. But if the state of society in Ireland has been generally improving-if, in the progress of improvement, the Church, as she ought, has taken the lead-if she has corrected numerous abuses, by which her usefulness was impaired at the time when England contracted an obligation to be her defender--if no objection can be urged against her which was not in force in the year when that obligation was incurred-and if many an objection which might have been advanced in that day, is now untenable -if, in a word, there is no reason alleged for dismantling the Church establishment, except that its humiliation would be acceptable to the Roman Catholics-it is impossible that any right-minded man can reflect upon such a pretext for spoliation without a feeling of disapproval or disgust, and it cannot be imagined that a people can suffer under the success of such a pretext, without losing all respect and love for the nation that has done them wrong.

Let no man imagine that a sense of self-interest only attaches Irish Protestants to the cause of British connection. All who have large possessions may very naturally feel that it is their plain interest to maintain the Union-but it is a truth which cannot be too generally known, that, quite independently of all such considerations, a great and mighty mass of Irish Protestants love, for itself, with a most generous affection, the very name of England. They love the land of their ancestors-the land where they believe religion to be purest,

charity most unfailing, honor most unspotted, and justice evenest and most impartial. It would be very perilous to give a rude shock to the loyal affections of a most noble race who hold England in this high esteem; and the shock will be given, and will be ruinously felt, if, for any consideration yet disclosed, the Articles of Union are violated.

There are some, we believe, so unreflecting, or so superficial in their knowledge of Ireland, that they can think without a painful emotion of a scheme which should alienate the great mass of the Protestants, provided it had the effect of conciliating that larger body now clamorous for " Repeal." Protestants, they argue, including those of all denominations, do not exceed two millions-Roman Catholics amount to six: is not the gain considerable, if the attachment of the larger body can be obtained at the cost of losing the lesser? We enter now into no comparison between the classes on which this 'compendious judgment is often passed-we do not complain of the very fallacious test of their respective merits-the test of mere numbers-but we give utterance to a warning which no man acquainted with Ireland will contemn, that, if the Protestants of this country become estranged from the love of England, there will remain no friends to the cause of British connection. No-if at this moment the Roman Catholic population was in a calm, and tidings were breathed over the tranquil mass that Protestants had become disaffected, an agitation more tempestuous and threatening than has yet been experienced would convulse the islandan agitation which would speedily break out into war, and which the whole power of the British empire might be found inadequate to sup

[blocks in formation]

far from regarding our church establishment as an anomaly, a wise and reflecting man would pronounce an establishment of a different description inconsistent with the order of things to which it belongs. The state of Ireland is this-the land has been bestowed upon Protestant proprietors, and a portion of their possessions has been set apart for the maintenance of a Protestant Church. Of what have Roman Catholics to complain? Are they satisfied that a rental of twelve millions has been assigned to Protestant landlords?—and is all their indignation aroused by the half or quarter million charged upon this rental for the uses of a Protestant clergy? Is this "that one strawberry" in the cup, which must bear the blame of the frenzied intoxication of the debauch, and of the morning's nausea and heartburn? Roman Catholics angry because lay Protestants are not in possession of the whole rental of Ireland!! Because a small portion has been reserved in which the poor of their communion must inevitably be sharers!! "What's Hecuba to them?" Is it good for a church to have assured temporalities? Roman Catholics have contracted engagements to the state which should silence their murmurs. Is wealth pernicious to a church? Roman Catholics are under engagements to the religion they profess, which should cause them not only to

acquiesce but to rejoice in the laws. which ensure to the great heresy or schism its enervating possessions. If, indeed, they bore any part in the burden of the establishment, “ reason good" that they should speak against it-mais nous avons changé tout celamodern science has taught where the burden really presses. Not tenant, nor landlord, but the state, is the sufferer. This is a truth which was brought to light as soon as revolutionists wanted it. Were the titherent-charge the property of Protestant landlords, it would be contrary to the principles of radical economists that it should be handed over to the clergy of the Church of Rome; but no sooner has the transfer been thought desirable than a reason has been found to prove it just-tithes are the property of the state-neither tenant nor landlord, with any semblance of justice, can complain of them.*

The ingenuity of hatred is fertile in argument. It has been discovered, that, although no individual in Ireland can regard tithe as any thing more than one of the conditions of occupancy or possession, for which he has had a valuable consideration-although the payers of tithe rent-charge are bound to regard it not as a recompense for the services of a religious ministration, but as the price (not, perhaps, a fifth of what it purchases) of a certain portion of the produce of the soil

This view of the subject is taken by an Irish nobleman, Lord Oranmore, in a petition recently presented by Earl Fortescue in the House of Lords :

"That your petitioner will advert but to one argument in favor of the justice of the present appropriation of Irish church property, which, though often refuted, is still supported by many, even liberal men and in high places; namely, that the landed proprietors of Ireland are generally of the present Established Church, and that therefore the tithes should be appropriated to the clergy of their faith.' Your petitioner submits it has been clearly shown that the burden of tithes cannot be said to press on occupying tenants, their rents being so much the less. Nor does it fall on the landed proprietor. If descendant of a grantee from the crown, his grant was and is subject to tithe as a prior charge, like quit-rent-if a purchaser, be paid so much less, from his purchase being subject to tithe. Wherefore, neither can such payment be said to press on the landed proprietor; nor has he, as such, any more right to say how these tithes shall be appropriated, than the tenant has to dictate to the landlord how he shall spend his rents.'

The noble lord seems to imagine that the state has a right (there are more minds than his lordship's in which the idea of right and power seems to be the same) to divide the church temporalities between the various communions in Ireland, and he seems to expect that Roman Catholics could be thus bought off, at the expense of the church, from their disaffection to England, and that they would then of course acquiesce in the justice of leaving his lordship in tranquil possession of the broad lands of their ancestors. His lordship is misinformed. It would not be amiss were he to read the extracts which we give in another page, from the illustrious labourer's letter to his son, acquainting him with the rights he is to assert when "the repeal comes.".

« PreviousContinue »