Tr^»^ 
 
 .^•y^-^'v. 
 
 
 
 •^&-vr '^n.
 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 a I E) RA RY 
 
 OF THL 
 UN IVER5ITY 
 or ILLI NOIS

 
 (IJ/a/^-y^ 
 
 ADDRESS 
 
 OF 
 
 SIR ROUNDELL PALMER, M.P., 
 
 TO THE 
 
 PRESENT AND PROSPECTIVE ELECTORS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 BOROUGH OF RICHMOND, YORKSHIRE, 
 
 In the Town Hall. Richmond. 
 On the Twenty- first day of August, 18Q^. 
 
 ALDERMAN LEONARD COOKE IN THE CHAIR. 
 
 RICHMOND : 
 Printed at the Office of Phillips and Co.
 
 ADDRESS. 
 
 Sir Roundell Palmer said : I need hardly tell you that from 
 the time when I first heard that there was likely to be a contest at 
 the coming election, it was my anxious desire to take the earliest 
 opportunity of coming before you, appealing to your kind consider- 
 ation for a candid judgment of my conduct in time past, and placing 
 before you on my part with equal candour that which, it occurs to 
 me, you would properly expect me to say as to what is to come. 
 I have not the honour at present, or the advantage, personally, to 
 know the gentleman who is to be my competitor for your confidence 
 at the coming election. I have seen in the public prints that he has 
 spoken personally of myself with the greatest courtesy, which I am 
 very glad to acknowledge. I hope, on my part, that I shall always 
 speak of him and his pretensions to your sufirages with equal cour- 
 tesy. I believe him to be a gentleman in every sense of the word, 
 and I acknowledge that he has a perfect right to come among you 
 and to appeal, upon his own merits, and upon the merits of the 
 principles which he advocates, to you for your support, either 
 against myself or against any other man. I hope I shall not be 
 thought too presumptuous if I venture to think I may have some 
 advantage before you, without any fault of his, in comparison with 
 one who is as well as myself locally unconnected with Richmond, (A 
 voice: '' You know where the advantage is," Cries of "Order," and 
 *'Put him out," Confusion.) I do not think that the gentleman who 
 spoke will interrupt again. (Another voice : *' He has no voice. 
 Sir,") If you mean a vote, I have just as much respect for those 
 who have not votes as for those who have ; and therefore am just 
 as desirous to enjoy the confidence of those who have not votes as 
 the confidence of those who have. (Hear, hear.) And I am sure 
 that that gentleman will show he is a man whose confidence an 
 honest man should wish to possess, by hearing patiently all I have 
 got to say. (Applause.) And now to return to what I was about to 
 say — I hope I may have some advantage over my competitor, by rea- 
 son of the length of time that I have already had the honour to
 
 represent this borough. You will remember that I first came here 
 when Lord Palmerston, at that time in charge of Her Majesty's 
 Government, thought me a fit person to be employed in Her Majes- 
 ty's service, in one of the ofiices under the Crown. Those were diffi- 
 cult and anxious times, and it was difficult indeed for any one to pass 
 through them unscathed. Far be it from me to pretend that no 
 errors or mistakes were committed, either by myself or others ; but 
 looking back to that period of time, I am sure the Government 
 then was conducted honestly, with an intention to do justice to all 
 classes of Her Majesty's subjects, and to preserve inviolate the good 
 faith of the nation towards all foreign Countries. But, gentlemen, 
 at the last general election I had to render you an account of my 
 stewardship during that period of time. Some years have since 
 elapsed, and there is now a further account to be rendered. 
 
 It was, if you will remember, in 1865 that I stood here by the 
 side of a lamented friend, now no more, whom you then sent to 
 Parliament as my colleague ; and we had to state to you our 
 opinions upon various subjects of general public expectation and 
 interest, which were then subjects of the future. I remember Mr. 
 DuNDAS telling you that he was prepared to vote for a considerable 
 measure of Keform, and to pledge himself to the £6 franchise. 
 If I dont mistake, I said at the same time, that Reform was a 
 matter which I thought of very great importance, but which I liked 
 to see practically treated ; and that I would rather not speak of the 
 form of any particular measure, until I knew what was likely 
 to be proposed, and what it might be possible to carry; 
 but that I had my opinions on the subject, which I would not 
 object to express in due time. Well, gentlemen, the Government 
 which succeeded Lord Palmerston produced an honest and con- 
 siderable measure of Reform ; but I frankly confess, that, though 
 bound as I was in all loyalty to support them in that measm^e, and 
 though I did so without the smallest hesitation or doubt that I was 
 doing my duty, yet that measure did not entirely correspond in all 
 points with what my mind had conceived as the best and most 
 satisfactory mode of settlement. I think those who have been 
 newly admitted to the franchise may perhaps pardon me, if on an 
 occasion like the present, when a man is inevitably compelled 
 to speak of himself — a thing which to me is very distasteful — 
 if on such an occasion I refer you, as evidence at all events 
 that I was perfectly sincere in the support which I afterwards 
 gave to the somewhat larger extension of the franchise proposed 
 by the present Government, to an occasion which occured in 
 the year 1867, when Mr. Bright, who on that occasion was the 
 mark of so much obloquy and scorn, as he is now of such general 
 praise, — (Hear, hear,) — When Mr. Bright declared that he was in 
 favour of a measure of Household Suflrage ; that he thought that 
 was the right point to proceed to, and the right point also at which 
 
 
 *crt(^^
 
 to stop. For my own part, I thought that such a step might 
 even at that time be taken with safety ; and, holding that opinion, 
 I should even then personally have preferred taking it at once, 
 to leaving it to be taken at two different stages, with the 
 uncertainty of what might happen between, or under what cir- 
 cumstances the second step might have to be taken. 
 
 You know, therefore, that I am at all events not one of the modern 
 converts to the doctrine of household suffrage. I was certainly not 
 an advocate for precipitating the time, or for bringing the matter 
 forward until I saw that it was practicable ; yet that was the opinion 
 I had formed. With the exception of Me. Bright, I believe I was 
 the very first person to give utterance to that opinion in Parliament. 
 Well, gentlemen, there was another thing in that bill which I did 
 not personally like ; — the plan of grouping boroughs. Richmond 
 was an example. It was proposed to marry Richmond to North- 
 allerton. Now, I can understand any one saying that Richmond 
 ought to have no member, or that Northallerton was not entitled to 
 be directly represented, comparing the population and trade and 
 other circumstances of these towns, with those of other towns ; but 
 I cannot think it satisfactory, that two distant boroughs should be 
 united, when they have no identity of interest. It did appear 
 to me, therefore, that the principle was not a good one. I was, of 
 course, not at all desirous to see the time come when Richmond 
 should disappear from the number of represented communities. 
 (Laughter.) But I would rather it should lose one of its mem- 
 bers, than that it should be united to Northallerton. 
 
 The next thing of which I have to give an account is a matter 
 about which I was not very much personally consulted ; though I 
 most cordially approved of the act to which I refer — the resignation 
 of Lord Russell's Government. It seems to me to be a scandal to 
 Government, when it has brought forward a measure on such an 
 important question as that of Reform, and excited upon the subject 
 the feelings and interests of the people, if it does not treat it as a 
 measure by which, as a Government, it shall stand or fall. I have 
 no hesitation in saying that Me. Gladstone and Lord Russell 
 took, in my judgment, the wise, the honourable, and the patriotic 
 course in resigning. (Cheers.) There were many people who said : 
 ''Why don't you go on, and let your opponents alter the measure ?"-- 
 but that is not the way to serve the country. Allow the measures 
 which you have initiated and brought forward to be subject to 
 reasonable modification, but do not surrender any principles of the 
 justice of which you are convinced. (Hear, hear!) Keep the con- 
 trol over those measures you think for the public good, and do not 
 let them be pulled to pieces, spoiled, patched, and altered by your 
 opponents, and then turn round to the country and say — ** See 
 what I have done ! " When it is not your work at all. Stand upon 
 the thing you think righ and if the House of Commons does not
 
 c 
 
 support you, then go out, unless you appeal to the country ; and 
 let them, if they can, support some one who will do it better. 
 (Hear, hear.) Well what was the practical effect of that ? The 
 practical effect of it was — (A voice: ''They were turned out." 
 Laughter and cheers.) They were turned out, certainly. But what 
 was the result of that ? Why, that they were able to get more for 
 the country than they could have got if they had stayed in. (Re- 
 newed cheers and laughter.) Now, Gentlemen, I have not come 
 here to attack other people. I have come here to explain, and, if 
 I can, to justify my own conduct in those important matters, and 
 the conduct of those with whom I have been associated, (A voice : 
 *' And the conduct of the present Government.") Not a bit of it. 
 I assume that the present Government acted according to their 
 sense of duty, both in what they opposed, and in what they proposed, 
 with that I have nothing to do. I want you to understand what 
 was the course which I, amongst others, took, when the Reform 
 Bill was proposed by the present Government, which was ultimately 
 carried. It was a very different thing when it was proposed, from 
 what it was when it was eventually passed. A great deal was done 
 with the rating clauses ; and we wished to do a good deal more 
 towards simplifying them. In that respect, I did my best to support 
 Mk. Gladstone ; and in the abolition of the fancy franchises and 
 dual voting, I also took, as well as I could, my individual part. 
 Then there were certain voting papers, which I thought would not 
 have tended to diminish the effect of personal influence over voters, 
 or to increase their independence. (Cheers.) I was amongst those 
 who opposed the introduction of those papers. Lastly there was 
 that measure which was carried by a majority in the House, and 
 which I agreed with Me. Gladstone in opposing — which as it seems 
 to me has made the populous places which have three members 
 rather worse off than those who have two ; for the latter will be 
 represented by a majority of two votes in all important divisions ; 
 while the former, through the representation of the minority, may 
 have but a balance of one. I opposed that. 
 
 Mr. Hauxwell : did you vote against it ? 
 
 Sir Roundell Palmer : I did. 
 
 Mr. Hauxwell : How many times did you vote on the question 
 of Reform ? 
 
 Sir Roundell Palmer : I believe I voted on the Reform Bill in 
 almost every division which took place, and in certainly every 
 important division, with the single exception of that one which 
 proposed the total disfranchisement of seven Boroughs, when I 
 happened to be absent. Those who have taken an interest in the 
 debates which then took place, know that the part which I took 
 was not a silent part, and that I actively took up the side, in 
 those discussions, which I believed to be favourable to the people. 
 I assisted Mr. Gladstone, to the best of my power, in the recent
 
 settlement of the question of Church Rates ; and I have been instru- 
 mental in calling the attention of Parliament and of the Govern- 
 ment to the great importance of a general revision of the judicial 
 system of this country, which I believe to be susceptible of very 
 great improvements ; the result of which was the appointment of a 
 Commission for inquiry into that subject. (Hear, hear.) There 
 have been other Commissions of importance, on which I have 
 served ; and to which I refer, for the double purpose of showing 
 you what my own personal ideas of the meaning of Law Reform 
 are — that they do not rest in mere general words and professions — 
 and secondly, to indicate some of those subjects, on which practical 
 Reformers may be expected, and on which I am disposed, strongly 
 to advocate change. The object of one of those Commissions is to 
 prepare the way for a general digest of the law, so as to make the 
 law better known to the people, and remedy many of its defects. 
 Another (which has recently made its Report), was appointed to 
 inquire into the law gf marriage, which is in a most anomalous and 
 extraordinary condition, varying according to sectarian and other 
 differences in England, Ireland, and Scotland. There are also the 
 laws as to the observance of neutrality with foreign states, and as 
 to Naturalization, the defective condition of which has given us so 
 much trouble with America, and the difficulties in regard to which, 
 have not yet been removed. In the business of all these Commis- 
 sions I have taken, and in some of them I am at present taking, an 
 active part. 
 
 Now, Gentlemen, I have done with the past, and pi'opose to say 
 something of the future ; and it is impossible to approach the sub- 
 ject of the future without referring in some degree to those alarms 
 and apprehensions in which I did not myself participate, but which 
 were expressed by some persons of not inconsiderable eminence, 
 as to the effect of the large extension of the Franchise which has 
 now taken place. Amongst these was one of the most eloquent 
 and able men in the Liberal ranks, — a personal friend of my 
 own — Mr. Lowe, who seemed to foresee innumerable dangers, if 
 not general anarchy and confusion, as the probable consequences of 
 such a measure of Reform. How that view could recommend itself 
 to one so able and of so clear a mind, I for one, do not at all under- 
 stand : and I am happy to observe that, although he seemed then 
 to be so much alarmed, he does not now seem to be more frightened 
 than other people. (Laughter.) On the contrary, he appears to 
 have as good a heart in carrying reforms further as almost any one 
 amongst us. (Hear, hear.) I therefore think I may take courage, 
 and say, that I fail to see, in the way in which the arrangements 
 for the forthcoming general election are being made, any signs of 
 approaching anarchy or unusual corruption ; it strikes me, that 
 things are going on veiy much in the same way as they used to do, 
 and that the relations of the different classes of society have not been
 
 8 
 
 altered through the constitutional change which has taken place. 
 There can be no real ground for alarm, if the people, generally, 
 are sound at heart ; if their conduct is such as to show on the 
 whole- that they are conscious of living under laws and institutions, 
 which, although they may justly regard them as susceptible of con- 
 stant improvement, they have no desire to change fundamentally, 
 or entirely to abolish. I believe these questions can safely be 
 answered in the affirmative, for it seems to me, that the different 
 classes of society do, on the whole, live in natural, cordial, and 
 kindly relations to one another, with a proper understanding of the 
 great fundamental truth, that they have all a common interest — 
 that in the state, as in the body, you cannot knock off the limbs 
 or injure any one part of the body without injuring all ; — that no 
 class in the community can prosper by making war upon another 
 class — in other words, that there should be no such thing as partial- 
 ity in government, or legislation for any class at all. I think that 
 the sense of that principle generally pervades the community. Of 
 course, I do not mean that there are not exceptions to it. There 
 are selfish and discontented people in every class. But the beha- 
 viour and conduct of the great masses of the people 'satisfies me 
 that these matters are practically so felt and understood. Just 
 as an illustration, look at one of our great cities : — London, Man- 
 chester, or any other city. In such a place all goes on har- 
 moniously day by day. There are a vast number of people in 
 every such place, struggling under difficulties, and often suffering 
 severely from distress or want : yet the whole organization and life 
 of those great communities tells the same tale, of liberty, law, and 
 order, realized in the habits, and governing the sentiments, of the 
 masses of the people, of every rank and calling. I have always felt 
 that those who thought the heads of the working classes could not 
 be entrusted with the franchise, did not know the people well, or 
 they never could have had any such fears. Employers and em- 
 ployed, capital and labour? will have their contests from time to time ; 
 and even these contests, though accompanied by some excesses and 
 abuses, may on the whole leave things better than they were before. 
 No doubt abuses do occur, which are to be deplored, but they are 
 not generally characteristic, either of the employers, or of the work- 
 ing people. The real bond of society is not found so much in the 
 machinery, as in the results of government : there is little ground 
 for fear, so long as all classes know that the laws are made in the 
 interest of the governed. In this country, and wherever there is 
 true freedom, the great object ought to be to reduce the interference 
 of the law to the lowest point, and to rely, above all things, on the 
 government of ourselves. That is the blessing England enjoys above 
 all other countries in the world ; and I wish to see it increased more 
 and more : those things which are wrong in our institutions being 
 changed, and those things which are good being made better.
 
 (Cheers.) I believe there can be no life without growth and pro- 
 gress, in societies or states ; and I trust to the evidence of progress 
 under former reforms, and to the evidence of the conduct and gene- 
 ral morality of the masses of the people, as satisfying me that they 
 have no evil designs ; that we need not be afraid of them ; that we 
 may express with our hearts the sentiment for which Mr. Gladstone 
 was for a time vilified and ridiculed, that they are our fellow Chris- 
 tians, our own flesh and blood, having the same interests with 
 ourselves, and in the sight of God as good as any of ourselves. 
 (Cheers and slight disturbance.) 
 
 With regard to what has to be done in the future, I have already 
 stated that I see my way to many improvements in our laws, both 
 upon those subjects which I have referred to, and upon others 
 which it is unnecessary here to mention ; I see my way to great 
 improvements in the administration of the public departments, 
 in public economy, in the system of taxation, and above all in the 
 education of the people, which I desire to see extended, and made 
 if possible universal. (Cheers.) I am not an advocate for obliging 
 people, by direct legal compulsion, to send their children to schools 
 maintained by the State ; and that for two reasons : — first, because 
 I believe it would be totally impossible to carry it into efi'ect ; and 
 secondly, because I greatly prefer that there should, in that matter, 
 as well as others, be liberty of choice. The State cannot directly 
 maintain schools in which a denominational religion is taught. 
 (Hear, hear.) The State may with great propriety largely supple- 
 ment the means of schools in which religious education is given, 
 as is done at present ; and may also with great advantage aid or 
 create schools, where useful secular instruction may be given, in 
 places where voluntary efi*orts do not supply them. I think denomi- 
 national schools are doing an immense amount of good in the 
 community, and that any attempt to supplant or supersede them, 
 by a general system of compulsory State instruction, would be a 
 step very far indeed from the right direction. (Cheers.) I wish, 
 therefore, to see all possible aid and assistance given by the State 
 to education — to see the direct establishment of schools for useful 
 secular instruction where voluntary efforts prove insufficient ; but 
 I do not wish to see any action on the part of the State, which 
 shall interfere with or cripple in any way the schools of the different 
 religious communities. (Hear, hear.) 
 
 I must now be permitted to say a few words as to the man who, 
 I believe, is likely very soon to be called upon to take the lead in 
 this course of improvement — I mean Mr. Gladstone. (Loud cheers.) 
 I think Mr. Gladstone has many qualities eminently fitting him for 
 so high a calling. I have known him long ; and I think, in point 
 of conscientiousness, in point of earnestness, in point of vehement 
 burning zeal against abuses of every kind, in point of disinterested- 
 ness, and in point of sympathy with the people at large, I have
 
 10 
 
 never known any statesman who was his superior. And that 
 appears to me to be a rare union of qualities ; for in times like these, 
 when great changes may no doubt excite a good deal of visionary 
 enthusiasm, and when impulses towards change may prevail in 
 many minds, very useful if they are turned into right channels, but 
 dangerous if turned by any means into a wrong one — times in 
 which, although not wishing to make observations on other people, 
 I am bound to say that those who by profession are Conservative 
 seem lately to have a little lost sight of their profession — in these 
 times it is of the greatest importance that the man who may be 
 called upon to take the lead in public progress should be a man hav- 
 ing those qualities, of conscientiousness and disinterestedness more 
 especially, which I have stated to you I fully believe Mb. Gladstone 
 to possess. (Hear, hear.) And that belief is founded upon con- 
 siderable opportunities of observation. I am not at all sure that 
 those very qualities have not stood to some extent in his way in the 
 House of Commons. If he had watched men and the arts of the 
 management of men more than he has done — if he had studied 
 more how to catch chance majorities, how to play with the weak- 
 nesses of the people about him ; if, in other words, he had thought 
 more of his own position and less of public objects interesting to 
 the Country, which were at his heart, — it is possible that he might 
 have been a more universally popular man in the House of Com- 
 mons than he hitherto has been. But I think the country has seen 
 and has appreciated those qualities ; and he is now the man looked 
 to to take the lead in improvement ; and my full and entire belief 
 is that he will fulfil the expectations of the Country. (Applause.) 
 No one can doubt his great political gifts ; few will dispute that 
 upon those subjects so important to the public welfare — a thorough 
 knowledge of finance and taxation, and of the economy of all 
 branches of the public expenditure — ^he is the man who possesses 
 at once more knowledge than any one else, and a more resolute 
 determination to give efi'ect to that knowledge in a way which may 
 be useful to the Country. (Cheers.) There is also no man I know 
 who will go further in the maintenance of peace, and the continu- 
 ance of that system of non-intervention which has met with general 
 approval in the country, and has been carried out in so successful a 
 manner by Lord Stanley, the Foreign Minister of the present 
 Government. (Applause.) 
 
 And now. Gentlemen, I am approaching a subject on which some 
 of you have expressed a wish that I should speak, and on which I 
 also wish to be heard. (Hear hear.) But before leaving the name 
 of Mr. Gladstone, although the Irish Church Question is one on 
 which I may not altogether agree with him, allow me to say that 
 with reference to his conduct on this question he has been in my 
 judgment much maligned and misrepresented. There have been 
 people who have said — << Oh, you never would have heard anything
 
 11 
 
 about the Irish Church Question from Mk. Gladstone, if the Tories 
 had not been in power, and if he had not wanted to get their 
 places." (Hear, hear.) To my certain knowledge that is not true. 
 I will mention what happened between him and myself ; and I do 
 so partly because it does justice to him, and partly because it will 
 show you that my own mind has been more particularly addressed 
 to that subject — one, of course, to which I always paid some 
 measure of attention — for some years before the present time. In 
 the year 1863, at a time when no one was bringing forward this 
 question, or seemed very likely to do so. Me. Gladstone told me 
 privately that he had made up his mind on the subject, and that he 
 should not long be able to keep himself from giving public expres- 
 sion to his feelings. When any action on that subject might bo 
 necessary or practicable, he could not foresee ; but he was then led 
 to speak of it to myself, for reasons connected with the represent- 
 ation of the University of Oxford. That communication took me 
 by surprise at the time ; but from thenceforward I knew that his 
 mind was made up upon the subject, in the sense to which he has 
 lately given expression in Parliament ; and his mind being so made 
 up, whether we entirely agree with him or not, it would be the most 
 extravagant absurdity and injustice in the world to say, that, when 
 he saw a favourable opportunity of making a question practical, to 
 which he attributed great importance, and on which he entertained 
 a strong opinion, he was not right in taking advantage of that 
 opportunity. (Hear, hear, and Cheers.) I believe from the bottom 
 of my heart that his sole object in doing so was to serve the country 
 according to his honest and sincere convictions, and not in any 
 degree whatever to promote personal interests or objects of his own. 
 (Cheers.) I come now, having said so much, to explain my own 
 views on this subject. With regard to Ireland, I feel as everybody 
 does, that it would be a great blessing indeed, not only to Ii'eland, 
 but to Great Britain generally, if the means of reconciling the differ- 
 ences, whether of sentiment, or of any other kind which have so 
 long existed between a great part of the Irish people and the people 
 of this country, could be found ; and if entire peace, contentment, 
 and harmony could be produced between all parts of the United 
 Kingdom. Certainly no greater blessing could be desired by any 
 of us. For it is impossible not to feel very anxious at the constant 
 chronic repetition of outbreaks, insurrections, seditions, and con- 
 spiracies in Ireland. (Hear, hear.) No more unhealthy state of 
 things can exist, or can be conceived. It is not only the Fenian 
 conspiracy we have to consider. That is the last, and, perhaps, 
 the worst symptom of a state of things which has too long existed, 
 and for which no doubt, if we could find any remedies, we should 
 be more thankful than for almost any political blessing that could 
 occur. (Hear, hear.) That is a feeling which I believe to be 
 entertained by every right-thinking man in this country ; but we
 
 should also agree that it is not because we are anxious to apply A 
 remedy to these evils, that we are to accept as a remedy everything 
 which anybody proposes, without considering whether it is just — • 
 whether it is calculated to answer its intended object, and really 
 to produce peace, harmony, and contentment ; whether it is consist- 
 ent with the primary duties and objects of Government, and 
 whether it is likely or not to be productive in itself of other evilsf 
 equally bad, or worse than those it is intended to cure. We must 
 be satisfied with the remedies before we apply them. We must 
 not take anything which any quack, for instance, might prescribe 
 even for the most serious recognised disease. What is proposed 
 should be intelligible in the first place, just in the second place, 
 likely to answer its purpose in the third, and safe to the general 
 interests of the country in the fourth. (Hear, hear, and applause.) 
 I will illustrate what I have so far said by reference to what is 
 called the land question. I am sure I should be truly thankful 
 if any one would tell me what legislation concerning the land in 
 Ireland, which will be consistent with the principles I have 
 laid down, is possible and likely to do good. (Hear, hear.) 
 All sorts of wild, visionary, suggestions are made, some of which 
 appear to me to consist in this, that you are in some way or other 
 to take away the land from those who now have it and to give it to 
 Bomebody else. But, if even this scheme were carried out, would 
 peace and harmony be the result ? Would not there always remain 
 plenty of people without land, who would consider that they 
 had as much right to it as their neighbours, if the laws of property- 
 are to be set aside ? By thus departing from the first princi- 
 ples of Government, by thus disregarding the rights of property, 
 you would be disturbing and unsettling everything, without in the 
 end satisfying or doing good to anybody. (Hear, hear.) All such 
 schemes of confiscation I, for one, reject. (Applause.) I am most 
 anxious to see the relation between landlord and tenant in Ireland 
 placed upon a better basis ; but I must first be satisfied as to the 
 justice of the means by which this is to be done. (Hear, hear.) 
 And, on this point, so much is said which I cannot understand, 
 that it makes me quite determined, in so serious a matter, not to 
 commit myself to any particular proposition, until I do understand 
 it. (Applause.) 
 
 I now pass to the other question ; that concerning the Ii-ish 
 Church. And you will pardon me, if I ask you to recollect that 
 from the first time when I set my foot within the walls of ParHa- 
 ment, and long before I had the honour to represent Eichmond, I 
 was among the most uncompromising supporters, upon all occa- 
 sions, of religious liberty and of political equality. (Applause.) 
 And if there be any difiiculties which I feel about this question of 
 the Irish Church, undoubtedly it is not from any wavering in my 
 adhesion to the principles of religious liberty or political equahty.
 
 13 
 
 The very first speech I made in Parliament, at a time when thai 
 question had made no great progress, was in favour of the admission 
 of Jews to the House. (Hear.) When the Ecclesiastical Titles 
 Bill, as it is called, was introduced, to make it penal — although 
 the law has never been put in force — for Roman Catholics to call their 
 voluntary Bishops, in their unestablished Churches in Ireland and 
 England, by such names as are convenient to them, I was one of the 
 small minority in the House of Commons who resolutely opposed 
 that measure ; and I had the honour of being thanked for it by my 
 Roman Catholic countrymen in Ireland. (Applause.) I have no 
 disposition to make Roman Catholics an exception to the rule of 
 religious liberty and political equality, as I understand it. More 
 recently the question arose in Parliament when I was in ofiice, 
 whether a distinctive^ oath should be imposed on Roman Catholic 
 Members of the House of Commons, by which they should be com- 
 pelled to swear that they would support and maintain the Established 
 Church, which no one else was compelled to do. It appeared to me 
 to be inconsistent with the principle of political equality by which 
 they were admitted to seats in the House, that any such peculiar 
 oath should be exacted from them, and I felt that if the Established 
 Church was to be maintained it must be maintained upon its merits, 
 and not because a special oath was administered to Roman Catholics. 
 (Hear, hear.) I took part in removing that oath, and in putting 
 the Roman Catholics in that respect upon an equality with every- 
 body else. (Cheers.) The same feeling actuated me in desiring to see 
 Dissenters relieved in the way most satisfactory to themselves 
 from the compulsory payment of Church-rates. (Cheers.) And 
 the same feeling actuated me in making those recommendations 
 v/hich are now before the public, in the report of the Marriage Law 
 Commissioners, for putting our marriage law upon a simple and 
 uniform basis, without any difference whatever between different 
 churches and religious denominations. 
 
 I refer to these things, that you may understand that it is no 
 new profession for me to say that I favour political equality among 
 all my fellow citizens, as well as the furthest possible extent of 
 religious liberty. (Applause.) On the other hand, Gentlemen, 
 far be it from me for a single moment to dissemble from you, that 
 I am an attached member of the Church of England — that my 
 attachment to that Church is among the dearest and the most 
 cherished of my convictions — and that rather than be a traitor to 
 that conviction, or a party to anything which, in my judgment, can 
 tend to diminish the just, legitimate, and, as I think, salutary influ- 
 ence of the Church of England in this country, I wonld rather retire 
 not only from the representation of Richmond, but from every pos- 
 sible scene of political honour and ambition. (Cheers.) 
 
 Well, then, when questions directly affecting the status of the 
 Church are brought before Parliament, you will see that there are
 
 u 
 
 in my mind principles, not conflicting in my judgment, but which 
 tend, I think, to impose upon me very forcibly not only the duty, 
 but the necessity, of trying to bring every argument and every 
 proposition to the test of practical reason and justice. — (hear, hear,) 
 — ^putting aside all mere sentiment on the one hand, and all per- 
 sonal and party considerations and interests on the other. (Ap- 
 plause.) Now, that is what I have tried to do with regard to this 
 great question of the Irish Church, which the statesman to whom 
 in politics I have been most attached, and to whom, personally, 
 I am very much attached — I mean Me. Gladstone — has felt it his 
 duty lately to bring before Parliament. I confess that I have felt 
 very anxious indeed, on account of the magnitude of the interests 
 involved in the agitation of this question ; but I have endeavoured 
 to do what I have just now said — to try every argument, and every 
 proposition, which has been under consideration, by the test of my 
 own practical reason. I have given you the result shortly, and in 
 a form, of course, very little explanatory, in the address which is 
 now upon your walls. 
 
 I will now endeavour to give some reasons for the views I have 
 expressed in tfiat address. And first it will be in your recollection 
 that I have said, that for the sake, if it be possible, of removing 
 political discontent in Ireland, and bringing about better relations 
 between that country and our own, I should not be unwilling to 
 support measures calculated to produce that end, even although 
 they might involve changes of importance, affecting the political 
 relations between the Church in Ireland and the State. Well, 
 now, I will first tell you, I will try to do it concisely, the reasons 
 which led me to that conclusion. 
 
 I cannot attribute any real, substantial value to the arguments 
 which I have heard in Parhament, in favour of the proposition 
 that changes of this nature are in principle, inadmissible. (Hear, 
 hear.) I have heard that Her Majesty's Coronation Oath is an 
 obstacle to her agreeing to any alteration of the status of the 
 Established Church. Not only do I differ from that doctrine, but 
 I think it is a doctrine most highly unconstitutional, tending to 
 place Her Majesty in a false position with her people, and one 
 certainly never designed by the framers of the oath. To imagine 
 that it could have been intended by an act of Parliament, introduced 
 in consequence of King James the Second's abuse of the executive 
 power, to tie up for ever the course of legislation in this country 
 on ecclesiastical subjects, and to make Parliament necessarily 
 incompetent to change the law because the Sovereign was to be 
 made incompetent to assent to such a change, is a proposition so 
 monstrous and extravagant, that but for the certainty, that there 
 have been and are some honest men who do entertain it, one would 
 never have thought it could have been seriously brought forward. 
 It is manifest that so long as the law fixes the rights and status of
 
 15 
 
 the Established Church, the Queen is bound to maintain them, as 
 she does other rights of her subjects, according to that law. But 
 the power of legislation is a subject entirely foreign to the true 
 meaning and intention of the oath. It is no more possible to 
 restrain the Sovereign from assenting to an Act of Parliament on 
 that subject, than upon any other which can be conceived, (Hear, 
 hear.) That argument, therefore, has no weight with me. Nor 
 is the argument founded upon the article in the Act of Union 
 between Great Britain and Ireland, which says that it is an essen- 
 tial part of the Union that the Church of Ireland should be for ever 
 united with the Church of England, of much greater weight. What 
 is that Act of Union ? I agree it is a compact of a solemn and 
 important kind, any alteration of which requu'es great considera- 
 tion, and may involve great responsibilities ; but after all, that 
 Act of Union merely expresses the terms on which England and 
 Ireland are to be united together ; and if it be the general judgment 
 of the majority of the people both of England and of Ireland that 
 these terms ought to be revised, is any one to tell me that an Act 
 of the Parliament of 1800, more especially remembering that then 
 the Parliament of Ireland expressed only the opinion of a small 
 minority of the Irish people, can for ever fetter the action of the 
 Imperial Parliament, even when directed to the object of making 
 the union not less real but more real, and not of disappointing, but 
 of gratifying the desires and expectations of the majority of the 
 people of Ireland ? (Cheers.) It is quite evident that this argu- 
 ment also is one of so weak a character, that it is not really deserving 
 of serious attention. Again, some people say that any material 
 change in the political relations between the Church of Ireland and 
 the State would interfere with the supremacy of the Crown. 
 (Laughter.) Now, I am a lawyer, and therefore may flatter myself 
 I ought at all events to be able to understand the meaning of these 
 words ; and if I do, I will venture to tell you that there are no words 
 more frequently abused, and no subject about which greater non- 
 sense is every day talked, than this subject of the supremacy of the 
 Crown. I think I can readily make you understand it. It is the 
 simplest thing in the world, resting upon what I may venture to 
 call a fundamental principle. It is this, that her Majesty, as the 
 head of the constitutional government, according to law, of this 
 country, is supreme in all matters of which the law of the land 
 takes cognizance. But then she is guided in all things by the law ; 
 and when the law is altered, the change does not violate Her 
 supremacy, but merely alters the mode of its application. The 
 true doctrine is well expressed in a form of words, used in the 
 pulpits of our Universities and Cathedrals, that her Majesty is ''over 
 all persons, and in all causes, within these her dominions supreme ; *' 
 not only supreme over the members of the Church of England, but, 
 equally supreme over all Roman Catholics and Dissenters. The
 
 16 
 
 Ecclesiastical law of an Established Church being part of the law 
 of the land, the Queen is supreme in the Ecclesiastical, as well as 
 in the other Courts. But all causes relating to the temporal con- 
 cerns of non-established Churches, or even to their religious con- 
 cerns involving temporal rights, are equally subject to the Queen's 
 supremacy ; though they are tried in temporal, and not in spiritual 
 Courts. If, therefore, you disestablish a Church, previously estab- 
 lished, you do not, in any degree whatever, interfere with or dero- 
 ate from the Royal supremacy — ^you only cause it to be exercised in 
 different Courts, and in a different manner. 
 
 I come to another point, on which a good deal has been said. 
 There are some very excellent people, and there always have been 
 for many centuries past, who have got this sort of an idea into 
 their minds, that it is the abstract duty of a State to have some 
 Established Church everywhere. I have never held that opinion, 
 and I do not hold it now. (Hear, hear.) It appears to me to rest 
 upon no solid grounds. It has been held on very opposite princi- 
 ples, by some who would make the Church dictate to the State in 
 all things, and by others who would make the State trample upon 
 the Church in all things. Both are, in my judgment, equally 
 wrong ; and I conceive the real truth to be this ; that the right 
 mode of promoting the interests of religion will vary according to 
 circumstances, in different times and countries ; and that State 
 establishments for the promotion of religion,when they have been 
 most clearly right, have not been founded upon any notion of 
 abstract political necessity or duty, but have sprung up as the 
 spontaneous growth of the religious convictions of the people, at 
 the times when they arose. (Cheers.) That is the history of the 
 establishments of religion which have taken place in most parts of 
 Christendom ; and if these establishments practically do good, if 
 they do really promote the spiritual, the moral, and the social inter- 
 ests of the country at large — I dont mean in all things and every- 
 where, for that is impossible, but if that is their general tendency, 
 as from my heart 1 believe it to be that of the Church EstaJD- 
 lishments of England and Scotland — there are then, I think, 
 abundant grounds for maintaining those Church Establishments 
 upon their merits : without at all asserting, that under all circum- 
 stances, or without reference to circumstances of time or place, 
 if you would maintain the essence of national Christianity, you 
 must have what is called a political establishment of religion. It 
 presents, therefore, to my mind, a practical question, and not one 
 to be decided by any abstract sentiments of this kind. All such 
 sentiments, although we may have got so accustomed to them as to 
 part with them unwillingly, ought in my judgment, to give way to 
 any clearly established object of public benefit, proposed to be 
 accomplished by means in accordance with justice. (Hear, hear.) 
 
 But having said that, I come to the second part of what I have
 
 17 
 
 stated in my address. I distinguish altogether between the politi- 
 cal establishment of religion, and the rights of property, which are 
 expressed by the term endowment. 1 have said, that for the sake 
 of restoring peace, contentment, and harmony in Ireland, I should 
 not feel myself bound on principle to object to the appropriation of 
 any surplus revenues now enjoyed by the Irish Church in places 
 where they are disproportionate to the wants of any resident Pro- 
 testant population, to purposes of general public utility. Now that 
 appears to me an extremely different thing from disendowment. It 
 assumes that the revenues are not wanted for the purposes for 
 which they were intended, and do not practically do the good which 
 they were meant to do in those places. Under these circumstances 
 it seems to be agreed on all hands that there is no principle which 
 obliges you to keep them where they are ; and that they may be 
 withdrawn from those places, which were intended to receive 
 benefit from them, but which do not derive from them the benefits 
 which were meant to be conferred. The Irish Church Commission, 
 of which you have no doubt heard, is generally understood to be 
 likely to state, in the report which it is soon expected to issue, that 
 there are many such places in Ireland, and that there is a considera- 
 ble amount of such surplus revenues, practically doing no good. It 
 is supposed that the Commission will recommend, that Parliament 
 should take those revenues from those places, and apply them to 
 other purposes, beneficial to the Protestants of the Established 
 Church, in some other parts of Ireland ; and there I cannot but hold 
 with Me. Gladstone, that if their present appropriation is not to 
 continue, no Protestants in other parts of Ireland have any claim 
 upon them. Any such transfer of these surplus revenues by the 
 State would, in truth and substance, be a new endowment, and not 
 the continuation of an old one. If, therefore, it would tend to 
 promote the peace and welfare of Ireland to make some other 
 appropriation of those surplus revenues, although I freely confess 
 that I do not in the abstract like applying to secular uses that which 
 has been once dedicated to the service of religion, yet I cannot see 
 that there is any principle, necessarily binding me under such 
 circumstances, which I ought to allow to stand in the way of the 
 general good of Ireland. (Hear, hear.) But this brings me to a 
 point, on which I may expect to find myself at variance with 
 opinions which may prevail among many for whom I have a very 
 great respect ; but I have made up my mind on the subject, and I now 
 proceed to give you my reasons for it. I have said in my address, 
 that I consider, that the provision now made for the Established 
 Church ought to be allowed to remain, in those parishes and places 
 in Ireland where its endowments are not disproportioned to the 
 wants of the resident Protestant population. For this I have been 
 criticised in a paper, to which 1 refer, because the criticism has 
 been re-printed here, by the local press. I have no complaint to
 
 16 
 
 make of that paper, (The Noncomformist) ; which is conducted with 
 great candour and ability, or of the manner in which the critic 
 speaks of myself personally. Of course, it could not be expected 
 that my point of view would be the same with that of a writer, who 
 is conscientiously opposed to all Church Establishments* But the 
 writer thinks, that in the conclusion to which I have come, I have 
 lost sight of the essential point in the case, the consideration of 
 justice ; and that the equality, at which it is necessary to aim, cannot 
 be arrived at, if that conclusion is maintained. Now I, for my own 
 part desire distinctly to deny that, in forming my opinion on this 
 point, I have for a moment lost sight of the consideration of justice, 
 which I also think ought to be the cardinal consideration in this 
 matter. It is essentially because T believe my conclusion to be just, 
 under all the circumstances of the case, that I have adopted it, and 
 that I now give you my reasons for it. (Hear, hear.) I have said 
 that there is a great distinction, in my mind, between endowment, 
 and establishment — the political establishment of religion. Endow- 
 ment, (in the sense in which the term is used in this controversy,) 
 is the mere possession of property ; it may be more or less, it may 
 have come from public or from private sources. Endowments may 
 be enjoyed, and are useful to be enjoyed, by non-established 
 Churches as well as by those that are established. Most non- 
 established Churches do enjoy them, in some manner and degree ; 
 and few would be unwilling to enjoy them more. It is, therefore, 
 quite clear that the possession of property, permanently dedicated to 
 the service of religion, is not inseparable from a political establish- 
 ment of religion. A political establishment consists in the incor- 
 poration of the ecclesiastical law of the Church into the public law 
 of the land, so that it becomes what Lobd Coke called " The 
 Queen's Ecclesiastical Law," — (Hear, hear,) — giving legal and 
 coercive jurisdiction to the officers of the Church, to compel, by 
 process of law, the execution of their own laws. Further, it consists 
 in the grant of secular dignities, privileges, and functions (such 
 as the seats of bishops in the House of Lords,) not recognized by 
 law as belonging to the officers or institutions of any voluntary 
 Church : and, on the other hand, it involves certain powers and 
 prerogatives of the sovereign with regard to ecclesiastical appoint- 
 ments, and which may be thought to give something of a political 
 character to those appointments. All these things depend upon State 
 reasons for existence, and, for sufficient State reasons, may certainly 
 be discontinued, without any injustice or hardship to any persons or 
 classes. I can quite understand and admit the force of the argu- 
 ment, that to give, (as in Ireland) a political character to the 
 Church of a very small minority of the people — to distinguish such 
 a Church from all other religious bodies by political privileges, rank, 
 and honour, — is inconsistent with sound notions of political justice ; 
 and that, under such circumstances, the cause of religion may
 
 19 
 
 be promoted, rather than injured, by putting an end to so anomalous 
 a state of things : especially when it is associated in the minds of 
 the people with a former political ascendancy of the same minority, 
 and its attendant evils, now happily passed away, on which we 
 look back with horror and with the greatest possible concern. 
 (Loud Cheers.) 
 
 I can therefore understand, and understanding I can yield,^to the 
 argument from justice, when it is applied to the abatement of 
 poHtical distinctions ; but it becomes quite another thing when the 
 question is that of taking away property from people who are in 
 possession of it, who are using it for purposes in themselves 
 excellent, and to whose reasonable wants it is not disproportionate 
 in amount. Here, again there might have been a view presented 
 to the Country which might have led to results different from any 
 which are now contemplated. It might have been said — '* You 
 ought to disestablish the Church of the minority, and to establish, 
 in its stead, the Church of the majority, and to transfer the endow- 
 ments, with the Establishment." I beUeve some of my friends, 
 particularly one for whom I have a great respect and esteem, 
 Mr. Foster, the Member for Bradford, in speaking on this subject, 
 have said — " You ought to do in Ireland what you do in England 
 and Scotland." (Hear, hear.) Well, but it must, for the moment 
 have escaped those who so express themselves, that if we were to 
 do in Ireland what we do in England and Scotland, we should not 
 be simply taking away the endowments from the present Protestant 
 Established Church, but we should give them to the Roman 
 Catholics, and should make the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland 
 — the Church of the great majority — the Established Church ; just 
 as the Church of the majority is the EstabUshed Church in England, 
 and also in Scotland. (Hear, hear.) Now, it is agreed on all hands 
 that we are not to do that ; and I have told you that I acquiesce, 
 upon that subject, in what appears to be the almost unanimous 
 opinion of the country. There certainly is one point in connection 
 with this part of the subject which puts all difficulty on that score 
 aside, and it is this ; that the Roman Catholics dont ask it ; — (hear, 
 hear,) — they dont claim it, they dont wish it ; they rather repudiate 
 it, and this because they think that the necessary conditions of 
 State establishment and State endowment in Ireland, if applied to 
 their body, would bring them under State influence and control in 
 a manner which might interfere with their ecclesiastical principles. 
 We must, therefore, be brought at last to this conclusion, that we 
 cannot, under these circumstances, do in Ireland exactly the same 
 thing which we have done in Scotland and which we have done in 
 England. (Hear, hear.) 
 
 And now the question becomes one of taking away from the 
 members of the Estabhshed Church the property of which they are 
 in possession in places, where it is not too much for their wants.
 
 20 
 
 So viewed, it is a question of mere confiscation : It is not a ques- 
 tion of competing claims ; it is simply a question of taking away 
 property for taking away's sake ; and I cannot see the justice of 
 that. (Hear, hear.) To give effect to a competing claim is one 
 thing ; but to take away that of which they are in possession, and 
 of which they are making no bad use, which is wanted for their 
 legitimate occasions, merely for the sake of taking it away, what- 
 ever else may recommend it, to my mind justice does not. And 
 what is very remarkable is, that there is not, as far as I can under- 
 stand, so much even as any definite secular purpose for which it is 
 wanted : — I do not believe there is a man in this room who knows 
 to what purpose it will be applied if it is taken away ; and under 
 such circumstances, I contend that those who are in possession of 
 these endowments, not exceeding their wants, unless they have 
 done something deserving of forfeiture, ought not to be deprived 
 of them. But I wish to put the condition of those Irish Protestants 
 before you a little more closely, because I do think, that the case 
 they have is a very strong one. Who would be the real sufi'erers 
 by this disendowment ? Not the clergymen ; for it is admitted by 
 every one that it is only just that the incumbent should retain his 
 living during the rest of his life : Everybody says that that is 
 just. Those who would be the suJBferers if the endowments were 
 taken away, would be of course the permanent class who derive 
 benefit from them — the class of Protestants I mean who belong to 
 the EstabHshed Church in those parishes of which I have been 
 speaking, where they are sufficiently numerous to want those 
 spiritual ministrations, for which this provision has been made. 
 (A remark was here made by one of those present, which was 
 understood as suggesting that disendowment would be just, on the 
 principle of retribution for past wrongs.) The honourable gentleman 
 who interposes, reminds me of two lines which were used to describe 
 a peculiar conception of justice, which prevailed in the early times 
 of the French Repubhc — a sort of justice 
 
 " Which visits ancient sins on modem times, 
 " And punishes the Pope for Caesar's crimes." 
 
 (Great laughter and cheers.) The title of the Protestants, now 
 in possession of these endowments dates back for three hundred 
 years : and if wrong was done by the legislation, which gave them 
 that possession, it is a wrong now three hundred years old. If 
 anybody else had now a better claim to it — but you have all agreed 
 that there is no competing claim to be recognised — it might be a 
 different question : but the enjoyment of three hundred years at 
 least is sufficient to put an end, in this, as in all other cases, to any 
 inquiry into the original justice of the title. (A voice : — Let 
 them provide for themselves, as others do.) It is very easy to say, 
 why dont they, as other people have done, support themselves on
 
 21 
 
 the voluntary principle ? The answer to that is, that those whose 
 systems of religion have been founded on the voluntary principle 
 have formed their habits, their associations, and their whole 
 organization, upon that principle : but those of whom I have 
 been speaking are a class who have been led to rely for centuries 
 upon this provision which has been made for them ; and you can- 
 not expect them to change their habits all at once, or easily to get 
 into a position favourable for working upon the voluntary system. 
 It is quite clear that those who have throughout relied upon a 
 provision actually made cannot, at least for a long time — be expected 
 to find means which would enable them to apply the voluntary 
 system as advantageously as those who have always been accus- 
 tomed to it. (Hear, hear.) Without for a moment losing sight of 
 the distinction, (which is an important one,) between private and 
 Chm-ch property, I still cannot avoid recognising the fact, that the 
 permanent class, now in possession of this property, have a sub- 
 stantial interest in the continuance of that possession, and that if 
 it were now withdrawn, they would either be deprived of the 
 benefit of those spiiitual ministrations to which they have been 
 always accustomed, or sustain a direct pecuniary loss, by having to 
 make good the deficiency out of their own means. When I find that 
 they are good and loyal subjects — having done nothing to forfeit the 
 property and using it for purposes not mischievous to the State — 
 and when I also find that there is no competing claim — I cannot, I 
 say, avoid coming to the conclusion, upon all grounds of reason and 
 justice, that their possession ought to be respected. But 1 have a 
 few more words to say on that subject yet. 
 
 A voice : — '' Did not the Roman Catholics enjoy it for three 
 hundred years, and have they not the same right to it then as the 
 others?" 
 
 Sir Roundell Palmer ; Certainly if they were in the enjoyment 
 of it now 1 would not be one for taking it away from them. (Hear, 
 hear.) I dont wish you for one moment to suppose that when I 
 spoke of there being no probability of establishing the Church of 
 the majority, in Ireland, I spoke from any partial feeling against 
 the Roman Catholic Church. (Hear, hear.) Do not misunderstand 
 me on this point or think that I would do less justice to the Roman 
 Catholics with respect to Maynooth College — although they have 
 only held that endowment for I think about half a century — than 
 to the Established Church. (Loud applause.) I do not think it 
 would be right, having encouraged them to rely upon that provision 
 for the education of their Clergy for many years, and to alter their 
 former arrangements in connection with foreign colleges and univer- 
 sities, — I do not think it would be right to take it away without 
 making them full and substantial compensation. I would give them 
 the full benefit of the principle I have appHed to the Established 
 Church. (Applause.) I was just going to say, when the honourable
 
 22 
 
 gentleman interrupted me, that with regard to Church endow- 
 ment in Ireland, there are these circumstances to be remembered, 
 as to places in which no disproportion exist between the Protestant 
 population and the endowments. In the first place, the ancient 
 part of the property consists of a charge upon the land, representing 
 tithes, and by far the greater part of that land is in Protestant hands. 
 The land has not been charged for other purposes ; it has been 
 charged for the religious provision of those parishes ; and really it 
 seems to me that even the owner of the land would have a better 
 claim than strangers, to have his land altogether discharged from this 
 burden, if it were no longer maintained for the purpose, beneficial 
 to himself and his property, for which it was created. Then 
 secondly, there are very considerable gifts of land, constituting, 
 especially in the province of Ulster, the greater part of the Church 
 endowments, which were entirely given after the Reformation. 
 I agree that they were given by kings, and therefore, they were, in 
 a sense, public endowments ; but I would have you bear in mind 
 that they were given under circumstances which make the case of the 
 Irish Protestants very strong indeed. It was at that time thought 
 the interest and the policy of England to encourage the settlement 
 of Protestants from England and Scotland in Ireland. Emigration 
 of English and Scotch Protestants was invited, and took place ; and 
 the whole province of Ulster was settled under James I, by Pro- 
 testants in that way ; these Church endowments being part of the 
 advantages offered, in order to induce them to settle in that country. 
 It would surely now be unjust to turn round and say, that, having 
 established a Protestant population by these means, we should now 
 deprive it of the property so given. At all events, I do not see how 
 that can be done, if we are prepared to deal with this question in the 
 spirit of liberality and generosity which has been advocated, and 
 most eloquently advocated, in Parliament by Mr. Bright, and by 
 Mr. Gladstone himself. (Applause.) 
 
 A voice : 1 should like to make a convert of you before you leave 
 Richmond on that subject. (Laughter and cheers.) 
 
 Sir Eoundell Palmer : With your permission I should like to 
 make a convert of you first. (Great Laughter and Cheers.) I 
 remember to have listened in the House of Commons with extreme 
 interest to a speech made by Mr. Bright on this subject — a speech 
 characterised by the most admirable spirit and the greatest moder- 
 ation. He said in the course of that speech, as far as 1 remember 
 his words, this : I would counsel the House and the country, to 
 deal with the Protestants of Ireland in this matter, with the utmost 
 consideration, with the greatest liberality, with the greatest gener- 
 osity, and with the greatest tenderness, leaving to them the fabrics 
 of all their Churches, and all their residence houses. And if you 
 do act with that liberality and generosity, I think it vnll only be 
 consistent, whilst you leave the edifices and the parsonages, to leave
 
 23 
 
 also the means by which they are to be maintained. Mr. Glad- 
 stone afterwards said, that modern private endowments ought also 
 to be respected : and I have no reason to doubt that Mr. Bright 
 concurred in this latter view. But surely, it makes no essential 
 difference in principle, whether this or that part of the property 
 now devoted to the maintenance of the Church, was originally given 
 by a public or a private donor. Property given by pubUc donation 
 cannot, any more than what the law has allowed to be given by 
 private persons to the same uses, be treated as revocable at any 
 time, without regard to the just claims of those to whom it has 
 been given. I wish you to see, how clearly the view taken by 
 Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Bright sets aside the principle, which 
 some appear to advocate, that, because you cannot " level up- 
 wards," by endowing the Roman Catholics, you must therefore 
 level ** downwards," and produce an absolute equality in point 
 of endowment, by taking away all endovnnents of public origin 
 from those who now enjoy them. If that was the principle, you 
 would not leave them the Churches or Residence houses, or any- 
 thing that they could not show was a private modern gift. You 
 would not leave them even St. Patrick's Cathedral, which has 
 lately been restored and embellished by a private individual at 
 such great cost. Everybody has felt that it would be a violation 
 of the principles of truth and justice, to take that away ; but 
 that is only one illustration. All over the country private 
 expenditure has been going on, in the building and restoration 
 of Churches, and the augmentation of benefices : all in reliance 
 upon the existing titles to Ecclesiastical property : everywhere 
 private is mixed with public bounty. You admit that it is not 
 necessary, in order to remove all just occasion for popular dis- 
 content, to take away their Cathedrals and Churches. Is it not 
 rather a mockery, I ask, to say so, if you take away the means by 
 which they are to be maintained ? (''A voice : No one should 
 be called to pay for another man's religion." (Cheers, interrup- 
 tion, and disapprobation.) I quite concur in that remark. 
 The gentleman said something about compelling persons of one 
 religion to contribute towards the support of another. That is just 
 what is not done in Ireland. If there were a tax imposed on the 
 people to compel them to pay for a religion they did not belong 
 to, I could understand the question. But the question relates only 
 to so much land, so much fixed real property, of which they have 
 been in possession for hundreds of years, and to which no one can 
 establish a preferable claim. To do this may, and I think must be 
 felt as a wrong by the Protestants, and make them an aggrieved 
 and discontented class ; while it will do no good whatever to any- 
 body else. 
 
 Now one word more before I sit down. Let me allude to the 
 consequences which would arise from the adoption of a contrary
 
 24 
 
 line to that which I have advocated — from a general disendow- 
 ment, which I hope at least, will be very carefully considered 
 before it is adopted. If the Irish Church is disestablished, and 
 also disendowed, what then will be the relative position of Ire- 
 land towards England and Scotland ? In England and Scotland 
 one state of things will exist, but in Ireland there will be quite 
 a different state of things ; so that anything but equality will, 
 in that case, flow from the present movement. If nothing but 
 '' levelHng downwards," nothing but this kind of equality will 
 satisfy the claims of justice, the result cannot fail to be, that 
 before long an endeavour will be made to withdraw the endow- 
 ments from all the Established Churches throughout the United 
 Kingdom. Well, everybody says that is not intended ; and that 
 the disestablishment of the Irish Church is consistent with a 
 desire to strengthen the Established Churches of England and 
 Scotland, and not to weaken them. I appeal, then to those, who 
 really entertain that desire; I think it is a very strong reason 
 for taking that course which would be least likely to be attended 
 with dangerous consequences to the Established Churches in Eng- 
 land and Scotland, I do not say that the apprehension of such con- 
 sequences ought to stand in the way of anything which can be clearly 
 proved to be necessary for the general welfare of the empire, and 
 for real true justice to Ireland. But, when the question is, whether 
 disendowment in Ireland should be carried to a length inconsistent, 
 (in my view) with justice, and likely to increase rather than to allay 
 discontent in that kingdom, this appears to me to be a consider- 
 ation which ought not to be overlooked. — Whether these conclu- 
 sions recommend themselves to your minds or not, it has been my 
 duty to set them before you as being mine ; and it is upon these 
 terms only that I can engage to serve you in the coming Parliament. 
 (Cheers.) I do not like to allude to any considerations personal to 
 myself, but I am sure you will believe me when I say, that, if I were 
 capable of yielding to motives of personal interest, they might 
 rather dispose me to waive all points of difference with those 
 with whom I have hitherto so cordially acted, and with whom 
 on other subjects I hope to act still. (Hear, hear.) But upon 
 matters which seem to me to involve the general interests of 
 the country, and which touch deeply my own feelings and con- 
 science, I am not prepared, for any personal or for any party objects 
 whatever, to go to the right or to the left, or to do either more or 
 less than that which my conscience allows me. (Loud and pro- 
 tracted cheering, during which Sir Roundell Palmer sat down.) 
 
 PHILLIPS AND CO., PRINTERS, RICHMOND.
 

 
 
 -'■ ■> -'.t 
 
 ■m-^i'/m
 
 
 ii^iiy 
 
 •^^. ;^a 
 
 ' Avi 
 
 IHW 
 
 F, " ] 
 
 s 
 
 9 
 
 IS¥''*«-id 
 
 
 
 -">'!3^l 
 
 '#^m.^ 
 
 ■^•^^ 
 
 
 
 '«.■> •?.