Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

ashamed to introduce, and the Irish nation ashamed to receive.'

So absolutely ignorant are our senators, of the first principles of religious liberty, that they congratulated each other on the service they were rendering to her sacred cause at the very time, and in the very act, by which they were violating her spirit and setting at naught her injunctions. So true is it that perfect religious freedom cannot co-exist with the establishment principle. We have long been seeking to work this conviction into the hearts of our people. They have been indisposed, however, to admit it. In their simplicity, they have continued to hope better things, and to turn a deaf ear in consequence to our counsels. Henceforth we need not reason. The debates of the past month have certified the fact, and to these we shall henceforth appeal in confirmation of our views.

The honourable members for Durham and Rochdale are entitled to our gratitude for their able exposition of the ground on which dissenters oppose this Bill. It is perfectly refreshing amidst the rubbish and lumber of the debate, the latitudinarianism of some, the besotted bigotry of others, the perverse mispresentations of not a few, and the splendid plausibilities of two or three, to light upon the clear and statesman-like view which they took of the subject. No speeches were more practical at the same time that they were grounded on principles of universal and permanent application. It was with withering power that Mr. Bright, after repudiating the reasonings of many opponents of the Bill, and stating that his main objection was derived from hostility to the appropriation of public money to the support of any religionists, exposed the hollowness of the measure and its unfriendliness to the interests of the Irish people.

The object of this measure,' remarked Mr. Bright, 'was to him just as objectionable, when he learned that it was intended by this vote to soothe the discontents which existed in Ireland. He would like to look at the causes whence this discontent arose. Did it arise because the priests of Maynooth were now insufficiently well clad or fed? He had always thought that it arose from the fact that one-third of the people were paupers-that almost all of them were not in regular employment at the very lowest rate of wages-and that the state of things amongst the bulk of the population was most disastrous, and to be deplored; but he could not for the life of him conceive how the grant of additional money to Maynooth was to give additional employment, or food, or clothing to the people of Ireland, or make them more satisfied with their condition. He could easily see how, by the granting of this sum, the legislature might hear far less in future times, of the sufferings and wrongs of the

people of Ireland than they had heard heretofore; for they found that one large means of influence, possessed by those who had agitated for the redress of Irish wrongs, was to be found in the support which the Irish catholic clergy had given to the various associations for carrying on political agitation; and the object of this Bill was to tame down those agitators-it was a sop given to the priests. It was hush-money, given that they might not proclaim to the whole country, to Europe, and to the world the sufferings of the population to whom they administer the rites and the consolations of religion. He took it that the protestant church of Ireland was at the root of the evils of that country. The Irish catholics would thank them infinitely more if they were to wipe out that foul blot, than they would even if parliament were to establish the Roman catholic church alongside of it. They had had every thing protestant-a protestant clique which had been permanent in the country; a protestant viceroy to distribute places and emoluments amongst that protestant clique; protestant judges who had polluted the seats of justice; protestant magistrates, before whom the catholic peasant could not hope for justice. They had not only protestant, but exterminating landlords, and more than that, a protestant soldiery, who, at the beck and command of a protestant priest, had butchered a catholic peasant, even in the presence of his widowed mother, All these things were notorious; he merely stated them. He did not bring the proof of them, they were patent to all the world, and that man must have been unobservant indeed who was not perfectly convinced of their truth. The consequence of all this was, the extreme discontent of the Irish people. And because that house was not prepared yet to take those measures which would be really doing justice to Ireland, and to wipe away that protestant establishment which was the most disgraceful institution in Christendom, the next thing was, that they should drive off the watch dogs, if it were possible, and take from O'Connell and the Repeal Asso. ciation that formidable organization which has been established throughout the whole country, through the sympathies of the catholic priests being bound up with the interests of the people. Their object was to take away the sympathy of the catholic priests from the people, and to give them more Latin and Greek. The object was to make the priests in Ireland as tame as those of Suffolk and Dorsetshire. The object was, that, when the horizon was brightened every night with incendiary fires, no priest of the paid establishment should ever tell of the wrongs of the people amongst whom he was living; and when the population were starving, and pauperized by thousands, as in the southern parts of England, the priests should not unite themselves with any association for the purpose of wresting from an oppressive government those rights to which the people had a claim. He was altogether against this system for any purpose, under any circumstances, at any time whatever. Nothing could be more disastrous to the best interests of the community, nor more dangerous to religion itself. If the government

wanted to make the priests of Ireland as useless for all practical purposes as the paid priests of their own establishment, they should not give them 26,000i. merely, but as much as they could persuade that house to agree to. Ireland was suffering from the existence of

two churches. Either one should be abolished or the other established; for with the present church having a small community, overpaid ministers, a costly establishment, and little work, it was quite impossible to have peace and content in that country. If possible give the catholic priests a portion of the public funds, as the government gave the regium donum to the presbyterians of the north, and they would unite with the church as the presbyterians did, against any attempt to overturn the old system of church and state alliance in that country. The experience of state churches was not of a character to warrant the house in going further in that direction.'

It will now be for the dissenters of Great Britain to take it into their solemn consideration whether they are not bound by attachment to their principles, by fealty to the religious convictions which they cherish, to exercise their elective franchise with especial reference to the preservation of religious freedom. The termination of the debate was as we expected, though the majority was undoubtedly greater. The second reading was carried, after six nights' discussion, by a majority of 323 to 176. On an analysis of the division, it is found, that the majority consisted of 165 liberals, and 158 conservatives: whilst in the minority there were 145 conservative, and only 31 liberal members. Amongst the conservative majority, were thirty placemen, so that had the question been left to the decision of the unplaced conservative party, it would undoubtedly have been rejected.

Such is the parliamentary position of the question. Let us now turn to the country, and see what has been the extent and character of the opposition offered to it. Of the former, it is sufficient to say, that the number of petitions presented up to the latest return we have seen, is 5,643. Considering the brief interval allowed, this is altogether unexampled, and should, of itself, have sufficed to make the House pause in its career. We can understand Sir Robert Peel, and his conservative supporters, in their contemptuous indifference to the petitions of the people: but what shall we say of the liberal members of the House, of the radicals as well as the whigs, the free-traders as well as the monopolists, the men who live by popular support, whose political status is founded on the representative principle, and who can descant with fluency when it serves their purpose, on the agreement which should subsist between the votes of St. Stephen's and the petitions of the people. There were honourable exceptions, amongst which, the mem

bers for Durham, Rochdale, Finsbury, Ashton, and Birmingham, hold a distinguished place,-but, taken in the mass, the liberal party has forfeited its title to public confidence, and proclaimed, as with a voice of thunder, the necessity for some great and radical change in the representative system. It is not simply, that the petitions of the people were slighted, that those who assume to be their representatives felt themselves at liberty to reject their prayer. This would have been enough, and for the consistency of our public men, we wish it were all: but, as Sir Robert Inglis remarked,-with a point and truthfulness not always characteristic of his sayings,-the petitions of the people were referred to by Lord John Russell-and the observation is equally true of others-in 'language which he certainly had not expected to hear from a great friend of civil and religious liberty.' Well, the time will come-let protestant dissenters keep it in mind-when we shall have an opportunity of letting honourable members know what we think of the manner in which their stewardship has been discharged. Let the constituencies of London, of Edinburgh, of Lambeth, of Marylebone, of the Tower Hamlets, of Leicester, we are grieved at heart to add, of Stockport, and a hundred other places, prepare for the discharge of their duty. For ourselves, the resolution is taken-and we know that we are not alone, no matter what the claims preferred, what the services rendered, the man who has voted for this iniquitous measure, be he who he may, whig, radical, complete suffragist, freetrader, or pseudo-voluntary, shall never have our support. We have been disposed to bear with much-perhaps too much-for the sake of a common cause. Our representatives have never been required to pledge themselves to measures antagonistic to the existing hierarchy, but this recklessness of principle, this contemptuous disregard of our conscientious scruples, is not to be borne. To have been passive in the former case may have been questionable, but to continue our suffrage to men who,where no vested interests existed, where the plea of antiquity had not place, where the sentiments of the people were outraged,have originated a new ecclesiastical institute, as if in sport of conscience, would be to evidence an indifference to principle equal to their own, and an utter unworthiness of the position in which the providence of God has placed us. The present parliament is approaching to its close, but the liberal members calculate on the public feeling subsiding before they have occasion again to meet their constituents. It rests with us to shew, that they misapprehend us, that as we are influenced by principle, not by passion, our resolution will partake of the enduring character of religious convictions. Let dissenters then immediately assemble in all parts of the kingdom. Let them take counsel with

each other, and enter into a solemn confederation, that on no account whatever, unless public repentance be evinced, will they exercise their suffrage for any man who has desecrated religion and scoffed at conscience by recording his vote in support of the ministerial Bill. We are glad to find that the British AntiState Society, at a public meeting in Tottenham-court Chapel, London, April 21st, has called attention to this point. The resolution then adopted, which we transfer to our pages for the guidance of our readers, was as follows:

'That the proposal of a measure so palpably infringing the first principles of religious freedom, the amount of support it has received in the House of Commons, and the arguments by which it has been defended, convince this meeting that the cause of freedom has but feeble support in the house supposed to represent the people; and justify it in calling on the electoral body throughout the United Kingdom, to exercise the elective franchise on all future occasions, with a special reference to the preservation and extension of the principles of religious liberty at home and in the colonies.'

On the character of the opposition offered to the ministerial measure we must say a few words. It is sufficiently evident from what has been said, that we have no sympathy with the views expressed, or the grounds of opposition put forth, by members of the English establishment. As between their church and the papacy we do not interfere, believing that both are unsound in constitution, seriously detrimental to religion, and alike obstructive to political freedom. As such, therefore, we have no interest in their contention, and had not the question a larger scope than their interests, our voice would be silent. If we admitted the necessity for a church establishment in Ireland, we should be compelled to vote on behalf of that of Rome. Its adherents constitute the overwhelming majority of the Irish people; while the protestant hierarchy is regarded with mistrust and abhorrence. But we deny any such necessity, affirming, that all establishments, whether protestant or catholic, episcopal, presbyterian, or congregational, are only adapted to secularize religion, and to estrange from her confidence the great body of the people.

Neither can we look with favour-truth compels the statement on the Central Anti-Maynooth Committee. We admit the zeal with which it has laboured, but we cannot approve its constitution or regard its procedure with complacency. The views taken of this question by churchmen and dissenters, are so essentially diverse, that though their immediate object may be the same, they cannot proceed two steps together without a sacrifice of principle on the one side or the other. Their resolutions and public acts must be of a complexion which savours of the one

[blocks in formation]
« ForrigeFortsæt »