REPORT 
 
 OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF 
 
 THE GENERAL SYNOD, 
 
 HOLDEN AT DUBLIN. 
 
 MARCH 23, 1886. 
 
 ghibliiT : 
 
 HODGES, FIGGIS, AND CO., GRAFTON STREET. 
 LONDON : W. R1DGWAY, PICCADILLY. 
 
 1886. 
 
 PRICE SIXPEACE. 
 

THE 
 
 CHURCH OF IRELAND 
 
 AND 
 
 THE PRESENT CRISIS. 
 
 REPORT 
 
 OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF 
 
 THE GENERAL SYNOD, 
 
 HOLDEN AT DUBLIN, 
 
 MARCH 23, 1886. 
 
 DUBLIN : 
 
 HODGES, FIGGIS, & CO., GRAFTON STREET. 
 
 LONDON: W. RIDGWAY, PICCADILLY. 
 
 1886. 
 
3 ht- H \5 
 
 CM* 
 
<r< 
 
 3 
 
 t <1 
 
 r* 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 a 
 
 i 
 
 t 
 
 25 
 
 % 
 
 I 
 
 .3 
 
 vfl 
 
 I 
 
 o 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 Archbishop of Dublin (Right Hon. and Most Rev. Lord 
 Plunket, d.d.) 
 
 Bishop of Limerick (Right Rev. Charles Graves, d.d., ex-Fellow 
 of Trinity College, Dublin) 
 
 Sir Frederick W. Hey gate, Bart., m.a., d.l., ex-M.p. for the 
 County of Londonderry 
 
 Bishop of Down (Right Rev. Robert Knox, d.d.) 
 
 Mr. Richard Bagwell, m.a., d.l. 
 
 Bishop of Derry (Right Rev. William Alexander, d.d.) 
 
 Lieutenant-Colonel John ffolliott, d.l. 
 
 Bishop of Cork (Right Rev. Robert S. Gregg, d.d.) ... 
 
 Bishop of Ossory (Right Rev.. William Pakenham Walsh, d.d.) 
 
 Rev. George Salmon, d.d., d.c.l., f.r.s., Regius Professor of 
 Divinity in the University of Dublin, and Chancellor of St. 
 Patrick’s Cathedral ... 
 
 Dean of Clonfert. (Very Rev. James Byrne, d.d., ex-Fellow of 
 Trinity College, Dublin) ... ... ,.. 
 
 Right Hon. Robert R. Warren, ll.d., Judge of the Court of 
 Probate 
 
 Mr. Thomas P. Cairnes, j.p., of the firm of William Cairnes and 
 Son, Brewers, Drogheda, Deputy Governor of the Bank of 
 Ireland, High Sheriff of the County of Louth 
 
 Archdeacon of Derry (Yen. Edward J. Hamilton, m.a.) 
 
 The Provost of Trinity College, Dublin (Rev. John Hewitt 
 Jellett, d.d. , ex-President of the Royal Irish Academy) ... 
 
 Mr. James Spaight, j.p., President of the Chamber of Commerce, 
 Limerick, ex-M.p, for Limerick City 
 
 The Earl of Belmore, m.a., k.c.m.g., d.l. 
 
 Dr. William F. Darley, q.c., County Court Judge 
 
 Bishop of Kilmore (Right Rev. Samuel Shone, d.d.) ... 
 
 Bishop of Killaloe (Right Rev. William B. Chester, d.d.) 
 
 p 
 
 3 
 
 PAGE 
 
 6 
 
 12 
 
 15 
 
 20 
 
 22 
 
 24 
 
 30 
 
 33 
 
 36 
 
 40 
 
 49 
 
 51 
 
 53 
 
 55 
 
 56 
 
 59 
 
 59 
 
 59 
 
 60 
 60 
 
Note — The General Synod is composed of the two Archbishops 
 and ten Bishops of the Church, and of two hundred and eight 
 Clerical and four hundred and sixteen Lay Members elected trien- 
 nially by the several Dioceses "of Ireland, and thus represents 
 the Church in every District and Parish throughout the King- 
 dom. 
 
<f jmujr of $«tonfc Spttial dmntl Sptfr 
 
 TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH, 1886. 
 
 SUMMONED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING 
 
 MANDATE. 
 
 I N pursuance of the authority vested in me by Sec. 16, Cap. I., 
 of the Constitution of the Church of Ireland, I hereby con- 
 vene a Special Meeting of the General Synod of the Church of 
 Ireland, to be held, God willing, on the 23rd day of this present 
 month, in the Synod Hall, Christ Church Place, Dublin, at 12 
 o’clock noon ; and I hereby request the attendance of all 
 Members of the said Synod thereat. 
 
 The Meeting is summoned for the purpose of taking counsel 
 as to the present Crisis in its relation to the welfare and respon- 
 sibilities of the Church of Ireland, and of adopting Resolutions 
 in reference thereto. 
 
 PLUNKET, DUBLIN. 
 
 March 8 th, 1886. 
 
 The Synod having attended the celebration of the Holy Com- 
 munion in Christ Church Cathedral, at 1 1 o’clock, assembled in 
 the Synod Hall. 
 
 The chair was taken at 12 o’clock by his Grace the Right 
 Hon. and Most Reverend Loud Plunket, Archbishop of Dublin. 
 
 A portion of Holy Scripture and prayers were read by the Lord 
 Bishop of Killaloe. 
 
 A list of members was laid upon the table. 
 
 The President nominated Dr. H. M. Pilkington, q.c., as 
 Assessor. 
 
 B 
 
6 
 
 GENERAL SYNOD OF THE CHURCH OF IRELAND. 
 
 It was proposed by the Very Eev. the Dean of Kilfenora^ 
 and seconded by the Ven. the Archdeacon of Clonfert, that the 
 Eev. Canon Morgan W. Jellett, ll.d., and the Archdeacon 
 of Armagh (the Ven. William E. Meade, d.d.) be re-elected 
 Honorary Clerical Secretaries. 
 
 Passed unanimously by the clergy. 
 
 It was proposed by Dr. Pilkington, and seconded by Colonel 
 ffolliott, that Mr. Henry Alexander Hamilton and Mr. 
 Chaworth J. Ferguson, be re-elected Honorary Lay Secretaries. 
 
 Passed unanimously by the laity. 
 
 It was proposed by the Archdeacon of Armagh, seconded by 
 Canon Morgan W. Jellett, and resolved — That if necessary the 
 Synod shall sit to-day until 7 o’clock. 
 
 Letters of apology were read from several members of the 
 Synod who were unable to be present. 
 
 PEESIDENT’S ADDEESS. 
 
 My brethren, clerical and lay, of the General Synod of the- 
 Church of Ireland, owing to the sad bereavement sustained 
 by our Church in the death of our late venerated Primate — 
 a loss which we all keenly feel and deeply deplore — the 
 responsibility has devolved upon me of summoning this 
 Synod, and of presiding at this meeting. I am painfully 
 conscious of the greatness of this responsibility ; but at the same 
 time, I do not think that any apology is called for on my part. 
 I took this step in accordance with a power vested in me by 
 the statutes of our Church, and I did so with the approval, and I 
 may add, at the request, of my brethren of the Episcopate ; 
 and I hope 1 am not mistaken in believing that in so doing 
 I have met a very general wish on the part, not only of the 
 Synod, but of the Church at large. But while no apology, I 
 hope, is needed on my part, yet it is right, if not for our own sake, 
 at least for the sake of others, that we should explain the grounds 
 upon which this Synod has been summoned ; and in order that 
 we may better do so, there is one question that ought, I think, 
 in the first instance to be answered, namely — In what capa- 
 city is it that this Synod meets together for the consideration of 
 the question now before us ? Let me then say at the 
 very outset that we do not meet here to-day as partisans. This 
 Synod has never recognised party distinctions. This room in 
 which we meet has never been made the arena for party warfare ; 
 and I hope the time will be long distant when our Synod will be 
 degraded into the position of a machine for the carrying out 
 of party tactics or party manoeuvres. Even when smarting 
 
THE PRESIDENT. 
 
 7 
 
 under the blow which deprived us of our endowments, and 
 separated us from the State — a blow which was due in a great 
 degree to the Liberal Government of the day — it was, I think, 
 to the credit of our Church that, having many adherents of 
 that Government amongst us, we never allowed anything 
 in the nature of personal invective or recrimination to be 
 heard for one moment in this Hall. And may I hope that 
 as we have done in the past we may do in the future ? 
 We have amongst us Tories and Whigs, Conservatives and 
 Liberals. We have one or two Radicals, and perhaps one or two 
 Home Rulers. Now, all I would ask of you is this — that if any 
 one of these, to whatever political school of thought he may 
 belong, rises up honestly to express his opinions this day, we 
 shall listen to him with that respect which is due to anyone who 
 comes forward fearlessly to state that which is the conviction of 
 his heart. However, I have a further reason for noticing this 
 particular characteristic of our Synod. The question that we 
 have to deal with to-day- — it is no use beating about the bush — 
 is simply this — whether or not this Synod, this Synod of the 
 Church of Ireland, is in favour of that policy which is known as 
 Home Rule. They who are in favour of that policy often speak of 
 those who take an opposite view as belonging all to one political 
 party in the State. They are spoken of as Tories, as Orange- 
 men, as Ulstermen. Now, I hope my friends in Ulster, and my 
 friends the Tories and Orangemen, will pardon me if, for the 
 sake of those who are without, I call attention to the fact that in 
 this Synod we have a good many persons who do not come from 
 Ulster, who are not Orangemen, and who are not Tories. It 
 may not, perhaps, be generally known that a quarter of a 
 million of members of the Church of Ireland belong to the 
 three southern provinces. In my own diocese there are 100,000 
 Churchmen. Now, when we bear these facts in mind, and re- 
 member that we have in this Synod men holding various political 
 opinions, following different callings, and representing manifold 
 interests, great significance attaches to the resolutions that 
 we may pass to-day ; and the significance is all the greater because 
 we, in this Synod, are elected to our present position by one of 
 the widest and most comprehensive systems of representation 
 to be found, I believe, in this world. Every male of full age in 
 our Church, be he rich or poor, has a voice in the election of 
 those who sit in this Synod, and, therefore, whatever resolutions 
 we shall pass this day may be fairly considered as expressing the 
 voice of the whole Church of Ireland. I have said so much because 
 I think it is important at the commencement of our proceed- 
 ings to bear in mind what really is the capacity in which we meet 
 together, and what is the significance of the proceedings in which 
 we are now engaged. 
 
8 
 
 GENERAL SYNOD OF THE CHURCH OF IRELAND. 
 
 But another question now comes before us, and a very im- 
 portant one it is, namely — Have we, the members of this 
 Synod, any right to deal with a question of politics ? If we 
 distinguish politics from party, I say unhesitatingly we have. 
 We have done so over and over again. We have taken into 
 our consideration Bills that were passing through Parliament 
 in reference to our Divinity School, to Education, and other 
 similar matters. We have appointed committees for the special 
 purpose of exercising a constant vigilance with respect to legis- 
 lation pending in the Imperial Parliament. We are, there- 
 fore, certainly fully justified in dealing with a question of politics. 
 Of course, it is right for us in all such cases to exercise a wise 
 discretion. There may be some questions of politics with which 
 it would not be expedient for us to deal. And I confess, as 
 regards this very question of Home Buie, I should have been 
 very slow, under ordinary circumstances, to recommend our 
 Church to rush hastily into the consideration of so difficult 
 and tangled a problem. But an event has occurred which 
 has put our duty upon this question in an unmistakable light. 
 The Prime Minister of England, her Majesty’s chief adviser, has 
 written a letter to which a special significance must be attached. 
 He has asked those bodies in Ireland that represent the various 
 opinions — religious and political — of the community, to answer 
 certain queries which that letter contains, and, as you may 
 remember, he has specially demanded information from those who 
 represent the minority in this land. Now, if we were at the 
 present time to give no reply to these inquiries, I think we 
 might very justly be subjected to reproach. We might be 
 accused of acting unfairly to those who have to deliberate upon 
 this question of Home Buie, and who, before coming to a deci- 
 sion on the matter, ought to have before them all the materials 
 upon which to form a judgment. We might also be blamed 
 for acting unfairly to the members of our Church who, if the 
 time were to pass by during which such a declaration could be 
 made without our making it, might ever after reproach us in 
 the years to come. On these grounds I think we are fully 
 justified in dealing with this question of politics as distinguished 
 from a question of party. 
 
 And now, what is the attitude in which we should approach 
 this question ? It appears to me that the terms of the Mandate 
 that has been issued guide us in this respect. We are invited to 
 meet together for the purpose of taking counsel as to the present 
 crisis, in relation to “ the welfare and responsibilities of the Church 
 of Ireland.” The welfare and responsibilities of the Church of 
 Ireland are, no doubt, nearly connected one with the other ; but, 
 at the same time, the words of our Mandate do indicate a 
 
THE PEE SIDE NT. 
 
 9 
 
 distinction. They instruct us, I believe, first, to consider how 
 the present crisis — I may say plainly, how this question of Home 
 Rule — affects our financial welfare ; and, secondly, how far it 
 affects our national responsibilities. As regards its effect on our 
 financial welfare, I need not tell the members of this Synod how 
 very much our finances would be imperilled by such a policy as 
 that of Home Rule ; but there will be others to-day who will 
 deal with this aspect of the question, and who are more con- 
 versant with it than I am. I would rather speak now of 
 those national responsibilities which, it seems to me, are of a 
 higher order, — I speak of the responsibilities which, as members 
 of the Church of Ireland, we owe to our native land. We often 
 hear the Irish people spoken of as if they were a body of men 
 altogether outside of our own circle. We are described at times 
 as aliens, as the Church of the English garrison, or in some other 
 terms which would certainly separate us from what are considered 
 by some as being the people of this land. Now, I am sure I express 
 the feelings of many here present when I say that I repel with 
 indignation the idea that those who call themselves Nationalists 
 ought to have a monopoly of patriotism in this land. I would 
 especially urge this aspect of our responsibility upon all who 
 claim for our Church the title of the Church of Ireland. . I need 
 not dwell at any length upon the grounds which justify us in 
 making such a claim. While we would be sorry to unchurch any 
 religious denomination in this country, we yet hold that because 
 of the continuity of our ecclesiastical lineage, and because of the 
 parity of our doctrine and discipline, we represent in this country, 
 as no other denomination does, the ancient Church which was 
 established in this land some fourteen centuries ago. There 
 is no other religious community, we assert, which resembles that 
 ancient Church in being at the same time Episcopal and free from 
 the control of Rome. We have, therefore, a special duty resting 
 on us as members of the Church of Ireland. But I am content 
 to base our responsibility upon another ground, namely, that as 
 Christians and Patriots we are bound to take a deep interest in the 
 land of our birth. I think, then, we are all agreed that we are 
 justified in approaching this question of Home Rule, although it 
 be a question of politics, and that we are bound to approach it 
 with a strong conviction of our responsibilities both as regards 
 our Church and our country. 
 
 The question now follows — What claim has this policy of 
 Home Rule upon our acceptance ? This is a question which I 
 know is very delicate ground to tread upon, and prudence whispers 
 tome — “ Hold your tongue, and don’t commit yourself;” but 
 conscience tells me that it would be wrong to seek a refuge under 
 the shelter of cowardly silence. I, therefore, will approach 
 
10 
 
 GENERAL SYNOD OF THE CHURCH OF IRELAND. 
 
 this question, and I will again ask what claims Home Eule has 
 for our acceptance ? Is it the case that those who ask for it are 
 labouring at the present moment under some burden, or sub- 
 jected to some grievance, which Home Eule would remove ? I 
 have carefully considered the statements put forward by those who 
 advocate Home Eule, and I cannot for the life of me discover 
 where the grievance is to be found. If any of our fellow T - 
 countrymen were living under the tyranny of penal laws, as 
 they were, unfortunately, some years ago, if Catholic emanci- 
 pation had not become a fact, if they were able even to complain 
 of the ascendancy in this land of a State Church, or if they 
 were able to persuade us that, owing to some fault in the limits 
 of the franchise, or for some other reason, they have not a 
 voice in the Imperial Parliament upon questions such as educa- 
 tion or the land, sufficient to enable them to obtain their just and 
 reasonable rights, — if, I say, they could bring forward arguments 
 in favour of Home Eule founded upon the fact of any such 
 existing grievance, I confess I would look at the matter in an 
 entirely different light. It is no use trying to trample out a real 
 grievance. But if there be no grievance, then we must trace 
 these demands for Home Eule to one of two causes, — either it is 
 a question merely of sentiment, or it is a question wdiich is put 
 forward because of some ulterior aims. If this were merely a 
 question of sentiment, merely a desire on the part of Irishmen 
 to have a Parliament of their own, not from any desire for some- 
 thing further beyond, but simply from a strong feeling of nation- 
 ality, I really think I would be a Home Euler myself. If those 
 who desire to sit in that Parliament were all men having no 
 ulterior aim, if they were all, in this respect, like my honest 
 friend Professor Galbraith, I should not object to Home Eule 
 as I do. I would go further and say, that if they were all men 
 of the same type as our present Lord Mayor, I have some doubts 
 whether I should be insuperably opposed to such a policy. 
 
 But is it not plain to everyone w T ho is not blind to what is 
 taking place at the present moment, and who is not deaf to 
 what is being said, that there are ulterior aims on the part of 
 those, in this country and in America, who exercise a chief 
 influence among the advocates of this policy ? This is, of course, 
 a question on which it would not be becoming for me to dwell 
 at any length. I should be sorry to quote in this Synod from 
 the speeches and writings of those who demand Home Eule. To 
 do so would, to a certain extent, lower the dignity of our present 
 meeting. But I do not suppose that those who have thus spoken, 
 and those who have thus written, would have one whit more respect 
 for us if we said they had no ulterior aims. Undoubtedly, behind 
 the claim for Home Eule — and we should be fools if we did not 
 
THE PRESIDENT. 
 
 11 
 
 believe it — there lurks the demand for entire Separation, and for 
 a very advanced form of Socialism. With what is passing before 
 our eyes — the state of social disorder existing in this land as the 
 result of ceaseless agitation, how can we doubt the tendency of this 
 movement? And if it be said that all is being done by Home 
 Eulers that can be done to check these gross exhibitions of intimi- 
 dation and violence, I would reply that I know of no stronger 
 argument whereby to warn us against the expediency of Home 
 Eule than to tell us that those who are leaders in it have no 
 power to lay the spectre they have raised. And I would in all 
 earnestness appeal to those who may be fascinated by the 
 idea of Home Eule, and ask them are they prepared for what 
 will follow. If the time should come when, Home Eule having 
 been granted, this country should be in a state of bankruptcy, 
 and if our Parliament should, in the first place, turn for relief to 
 the endowments of Trinity College, might it not go on, as has 
 been done in other lands, to seize upon the endowments of con- 
 ventual institutions as well ? 
 
 But it may be asked — Are you prepared to meet the alternative 
 which will present itself if Home Eule be refused ? This is 
 a question which we must all face. If we are to look at this 
 matter from a statesmanlike point of view, we must not look 
 merely at the dangers which will follow on Home Eule, but we 
 must also look at the dangers that might follow from its rejec- 
 tion. Are we, then, prepared for the floodgates of resentful 
 disappointment that will, it is said, be opened in the 
 event of the aspirations of the people being thwarted in this 
 respect ? In reply I would say that if this movement were based 
 on a real grievance, I should not be prepared to face any such 
 alternative. But believing that there is no such grievance, we 
 must only do what is right, and trust in Him who has hitherto 
 helped us. We know not how many things may arise to change 
 the present aspect of affairs. It certainly would be a discredit- 
 able thing to the Constitution under which we live if it were 
 impossible, by fair and just legislation, to repress crime, and at 
 the same time, to concede the claims of justice. I will not 
 believe that such a thing is impossible. But if the outlook 
 presented by this alternative were darker than it really is, I 
 would ask this question — Is it right that honest, Christian, 
 patriotic men should yield to terrorism? Is it right that we 
 should cower before the threats of those who commit acts which 
 we believe in our hearts to be wrong ? I believe that in so 
 doing we should be bringing about the humiliation not merely of 
 our own country, but of the great Empire to which we belong. 
 
 There is one other difficulty, I confess, which has weighed 
 much more with me, and it is this. I have received letters 
 
12 
 
 GENERAL SYNOD OF THE CHURCH OF IRELAND. 
 
 from many thoughtful men, who have appealed to me thus — 
 “ You are acting madly in trying to obtain such a pronouncement 
 from the Church of Ireland. You are anxious that the people of 
 Ireland should' not be alienated from your Church. You desire 
 that they should be gathered within its fold, and yet you are 
 doing that which is most likely to exasperate them.” I con- 
 fess that this appeal, at first sight, has staggered me. But 
 here again I have come to the conclusion that we must do what 
 is right, and leave the issue in God’s hands. And I have 
 faith to believe that the time will come when our fellow-country- 
 men here in Ireland will learn to know who have been their 
 true friends. 
 
 I will now sum up briefly what I have ventured to submit to 
 this great assembly. I have, I think, explained the capacity in 
 which we are gathered together this day — as those who are not 
 tied to any political party, who do not belong to any particular 
 class, but who represent the feelings of 600,000 members of the 
 Church of Ireland. I have shown that we have a right and a duty 
 to deal with this question, not merely as it affects the interests of 
 our Church, but also as it affects the interests of our country 
 and I have ventured, with all diffidence, but honestly, to express 
 to you what my own convictions are with reference to Home 
 Buie. I now leave the further discussion of the question to> 
 abler and better hands. I will only just make one request, 
 namely — that in our proceedings this day, while we quit our- 
 selves like men, and express our convictions with no uncertain 
 sound, we shall remember that Charity is the most excellent of 
 gifts. Do not let us speak as if we regarded our fellow-countrymen 
 as our enemies. They are our brethren. We should meet them not 
 as a phalanx of contending foes, but as brethren who have been 
 led by false guides to the brink of a precipice ; and we should 
 urge them to pause before they plunge into the abyss. Let us 
 conduct our proceedings thus, and look up for help from above, 
 remembering the injunction of which the Preamble to our 
 Constitution reminds us, namely — that it is the duty of Irish 
 Churchmen to further “ quietness, peace, and love among all 
 Christian people.” And, if ever there was a time when this 
 was the duty of our Church, it is now — in this crisis in the history 
 of our native land ! 
 
 The Lord Bishop of Limerick. — My Lord, I rise to move the 
 first resolution : — 
 
 “That we, the Bishops, Clergy, and Laity of the Church of Ireland, 
 assembled in this General Synod from all parts of Ireland, and representing 
 more than six hundred thousand of the Irish people, consider it a duty at 
 
THE LORD BISHOP OF LIMERICK. 
 
 18 
 
 the present crisis to affirm our constant allegiance to the Throne, and our 
 unswerving attachment to the legislative Union now subsisting between 
 Great Britain and Ireland. And we make this declaration not as adherents 
 of a party, nor on behalf of a class, but as a body of Irishmen holding various 
 political opinions, following different callings, representing many separate 
 interests, and sharing, at the same time, a common desire for the honour 
 and welfare of our native land.” 
 
 I should fail to interpret the feelings of the members of the 
 Synod if I did not seize the first possible opportunity of tender- 
 ing their respectful and cordial thanks to your Grace for issuing 
 the Mandate by which it has been convened, and for opening its 
 proceedings, as you have done, with words of wise counsel and 
 suggestion. I have, indeed, received no formal authority thus to 
 express the feelings of the Synod ; but, from every indication that 
 has reached me, I gather a full assurance that in doing so I carry 
 with me the sympathy and approval of every member of this 
 assembly. In proposing this resolution for the acceptance of so 
 numerous and important an assembly, and on an occasion so 
 momentous as the present, I might well feel distrust of my 
 power to discharge the office intrusted to me ; but I confide in 
 the indulgence of my hearers, who will find in the substance of 
 the resolution itself what will make up for any defect in my 
 advocacy. At a most serious crisis in the history of our country, 
 all its great interests have been called upon to give an authorita- 
 tive reply to questions of the gravest national moment. Amongst 
 these interests it cannot be denied that the Church of Ireland is 
 one of wide and important influence. When such an appeal is 
 made, and when other bodies are giving their replies, it is impos- 
 sible for the Church of Ireland to hold back in silence. Having 
 deep feelings and convictions in regard to matters which, she 
 believes, concern the vital welfare of all belonging to her, she 
 must not shrink from giving utterance to those feelings and con- 
 victions ; and if she speaks, it is, I think, plain that she ought 
 to speak in the most solemn way, through this great body, which 
 is the whole Church of Ireland in representation, representing as 
 it does every diocese, every parish, every clergyman, and every 
 layman of our communion ; and these representatives have 
 authority to speak and act on behalf of 600,000 persons — thou- 
 sands which ought to be not only numbered, but estimated with 
 a regard to their importance in the social scale. They stand in 
 line, moreover, with about an equal number of Protestants of 
 other denominations, agreeing with them in character and general 
 sentiments. Altogether the Protestants of Ireland, though they 
 may be only about one-fourth of the whole population, include 
 amongst them the great majority of those who form the first 
 rank in education, property, and professional eminence. 
 
14 
 
 GENERAL SYNOD OF THE CHURCH OF IRELAND. 
 
 We are met to-day to declare, amongst other things, our loyalty 
 to the Throne. I am aware that loyalty has been derided as an 
 obsolete notion by those who are satisfied to think that we are 
 all drifting towards Republicanism. But I can answer for it that 
 the sentiment is very far from dying out. To say nothing of a 
 chivalrous feeling of devotion for a Queen who is an admirable 
 type of womanhood, a pattern of domestic virtue, there are plenty 
 of men, both young and old, who would readily prove their loyalty 
 by any sacrifice of fortune, limb, or life, that was called for in 
 defence of her honour or her dignity — a Sovereign carefully 
 trained in the principles of Constitutional procedure, sympathising 
 with her subjects in troubles of which her own domestic griefs 
 have taught her the terrible keenness — a mother who has brought 
 up her children to walk in paths marked out by wisdom and 
 benevolence, and to take an active part in all works calculated to 
 promote learning, art, and charity. We owe to such a Sovereign 
 an incalculable debt of affection and gratitude. 
 
 In dealing with the questions which come before us to-day, it 
 will be found impossible to avoid touching upon topics, social 
 and political, which are inextricably connected with the interests 
 of our Church and religion ; and, in the resolutions which will 
 be presented to us, we shall be brought face to face with practical 
 questions of a most serious kind. But I trust we shall be able 
 to discuss them without being tempted to use language or argu- 
 ments prompted by party spirit. There are in this Hall men 
 holding different opinions respecting law, education, commerce, 
 trade, agriculture, foreign affairs, but all agreeing to desire the 
 continuance of the legislative Union. We ivish to have our laws 
 made by and administered under the control of the Imperial Parlia- 
 ment. That Parliament is not infallible. There is no individual 
 here present who will not say that it has made mistakes in legisla- 
 tion with respect to many matters of the utmost importance. 
 But, fallible as it may be, we are content to live under it rather 
 than trust to such a Parliament as would be elected by Irish 
 constituencies. The Imperial Parliament has at all events 
 shown good intentions. It has represented, on the whole, the 
 moral, benevolent, and patriotic aspirations of the best and wisest 
 men of their time. And how much have they accomplished 
 within the last sixty years to promote the real interests* of the 
 mass of the people, amending the laws so that crime has dimi- 
 nished and the social condition of the masses has been greatly 
 improved. I need not remind you of what the Empire, of which 
 Ireland is an integral part, has grown to under this system of 
 government— -of its immense extent, its wealth, its power, above 
 all, the influence which it is able to exercise, and to a great 
 extent does exercise, in diffusing throughout the world the human- 
 
SIR FREDERICK WILLIAM HEYGATE, BART. 
 
 15 
 
 ising influences of civilization and religion. God grant that its 
 glorious work may not be hindered by dismemberment or paralysis. 
 The cords which bind the most distant colonies to England are 
 being drawn more closely every year. This is not the time to 
 try experiments of separation between the central parts of our 
 mighty Empire. Its constitution has not been fabricated by poli- 
 ticians. It has grown up into its stately greatness, occalto velut 
 arbor cevo. Our Prayer-book, in its services, shows the view 
 which our Church takes of the functions and responsibilities of 
 the Imperial Parliament as it now exists. It directs us to pray 
 during their session 4 ‘ that God would be pleased to direct and 
 prosper all their consultations to the advancement of His glory, 
 the good of His Church, the safety, honour, and welfare of our 
 Sovereign and her dominions ; that all things may be so ordered 
 and settled by their endeavours upon the best and surest founda- 
 tions, that peace and happiness, truth and justice, religion and 
 piety, may be established among us for all generations.” And 
 let me remind you that the laws of the land framed by the Parlia- 
 ment are designed to enforce the Commandments of the Second 
 Table, of which a great American, commenting upon the vicissi- 
 tudes of political opinion and action, said that, at all events, 
 “ they would not budge.” Our Prayer-book, explaining our duty 
 towards our neighbour, tells us, among other things, that we are 
 bound “ to honour and obey the Queen, and all that are put in 
 authority under her ; ... to hurt nobody by word nor deed ; to 
 be true and just in all our dealings ; to bear no malice nor 
 hatred in our hearts ; . . . to keep our tongues from evil- speaking, 
 lying, and slandering ; . . . not to covet nor desire other men’s 
 goods, but to learn and labour truly to get our own living, and 
 to do our duty in that state of life unto which it pleases God to 
 call us.” I need scarcely ask the questions, whether we can 
 reasonably expect that a Parliament in Dublin will act in the 
 spirit of the prayer to which I have referred, or whether the 
 type of citizen with which we are becoming familiarised in this 
 country is better than that which has been placed before us in 
 our Catechism. 
 
 Sir Frederick William Heygate, Bart. — May it please your 
 Grace, I have the honour to second this resolution. I come 
 from a diocese which is exempt, to a great extent, from the 
 evils and horrors of which we have frequently read. Still it has 
 suffered in a large degree in the misfortunes of the country. We 
 in the North have no desire to separate ourselves from the rest 
 of Ireland. On the contrary, we feel that we have one Church, 
 one faith, and our only desire is to identify ourselves with the 
 whole Church of Ireland. I am sure you will bear with me in 
 
16 
 
 GENERAL SYNOD OF THE CHURCH OF IRELAND. 
 
 any want of capacity I may display in the consideration of this 
 subject. We are face to face with a crisis of the most moment- 
 ous nature, and upon the solution of that crisis depends, in 
 my opinion, not only the prosperity, but the happiness, of every 
 member of the Church of Ireland, and, far beyond that, of every 
 inhabitant of this country. Reference has been made to the 
 Church of Ireland as being devoted and loyal to the Crown. I 
 think there can be no doubt about that, and we may take it for 
 granted. With regard to your Grace’s observations as to the 
 political aspect of the question, I may say, for my own part, that, 
 coming from a part of the North of Ireland of which your Grace 
 seems a little afraid, there is no feeling of exasperation, or any- 
 thing more than the natural determination that every sensible 
 man must feel to resist this great alteration of Home Rule, as it 
 is called, or, as I prefer to call it, Repeal of the Union. As 
 to Home Rule, it bears many interpretations. I heard in the 
 House of Commons Mr. Butt’s explanation, or rather attempted 
 explanation, of Home Rule ; but I may say he never succeeded 
 in explaining what he meant. Far more is expected than Home 
 Rule, — the repeal of the legislative Union of these countries, 
 which is fraught with great consequences both to England and 
 Ireland. I could not fail to be struck by what occurred in 1869, 
 in the debates that took place, and in which I took part, 
 when first the proposal was made to disestablish and disendow 
 the Church of Ireland. We were told that it was a small 
 matter, that the Union was perfectly secure and inviolate, that 
 the question between the Church and State was a very small 
 part of it, that they might safely disestablish and disendow the 
 Church of Ireland, and that the State would get on very well, 
 and the Church be none the worse. There were those who 
 doubted the wisdom of this course. I am not going to argue 
 the question whether it was right or wrong ; but I wish to read 
 one or two extracts from the speeches of Lord Beaconsfield on 
 that occasion. Lord Beaconsfield spoke with a spirit of pro- 
 phecy. It was the third reading of the Bill, the question was 
 settled, and it only remained to accept the settlement in the best 
 spirit of hope for the future. Mr. Disraeli, as he was then, 
 speaking of Papal supremacy, said : “ I do not blame the Papacy 
 for fulfilling that which, with their convictions, must be their 
 highest duty. One’s ordinary knowledge of human nature con- 
 vinces us of this — that if men are abler than others, if they have 
 the advantage of discipline and organization when all others are 
 undisciplined and disordered, when everything is in confusion, 
 when everyone is discontented, when you have Captain Rock 
 amongst the peasantry, and when you have the Protestants of 
 Ireland feeling, as they will feel, betrayed and deserted, they will 
 
SIB FREDERICK WILLIAM HEYGATE, BART. 
 
 17 
 
 take advantage of sncli a state of tilings in order to advance the 
 opinions which they conscientiously believe are the right ones, 
 and avail themselves in such circumstances of the discipline and 
 order which they command.” And then he went on to say : 
 “And, again, will the Protestants of Ireland submit to the 
 establishment of Papal ascendancy without a struggle ? It may 
 occur probably wdien the Union between the two countries, which 
 is to be partially dissolved to-night, may be completely destroyed, 
 for it is very possible that after a period of great disquietude, 
 doubt, and passion, events may occur which may complete that 
 severance of the Union which to-night we are commencing. 
 What I fear is that it may lead to civil war. It is natural and 
 probable that the Papal power in Ireland will attempt to attain 
 ascendancy and predominance. I say it is natural, and, what is 
 more, it ought to do it, and it will do it. Is it natural that the 
 Protestants of Ireland should submit without a struggle to such 
 a state of things ? You know they will not. Is England to 
 interfere ? Are we to have a repetition of the direful history 
 which on both sides now we desire to forget ? Is there to be 
 another Battle of the Boyne, another Siege of Derry, another 
 Treaty of Limerick ? These things are not only possible, but 
 probable.” These were the words spoken by Mr. Disraeli, and 
 I fear he was too good a prophet. 
 
 With regard to the question we are now face to face with, I 
 wish to speak, first, as to its effect on the Church, and, second, 
 as to its effect on the people. As to the Church, we have every 
 right to look to the Prime Minister for support. He drew up 
 an elaborate scheme of arrangement for the Church — a scheme 
 conceived with the utmost ability, and with a certain amount of 
 friendliness towards the Church. Synods were formed, and clergy 
 and laity put their heads together, and saved all that could be 
 saved. No institution has been managed with greater ability 
 and success than the organization of the Church of Ireland from 
 the time of the Disestablishment ; but now we are brought face 
 to face with a great danger, and threatened with a measure that 
 will throw everything into confusion, and that must put an end 
 to the security not only of property, but of life. How can it be 
 possible to ask the Protestant people in remote districts of the 
 country to remain under the new system of things ? We have 
 seen a little of the difficulties that surround such people already. 
 How will it be some years hence ? It will be impossible for 
 them to live in the country, and one by one they must disappear ; 
 although in the North of Ireland they would be more compact, 
 and, having the assistance of the large body of the Presbyterians, 
 they might hope to hold their own. Ireland would be very 
 different from what it has been, and the future of England 
 would be very much influenced by the change. 
 
18 
 
 GENERAL SYNOD OF THE CHURCH OF IRELAND. 
 
 With regard to the effect on the people of the country — Is 
 there anything in the proposals of Home Rule which would really 
 conduce to the interests of peace ? Would trade be more pros- 
 perous, would commerce be improved, would security be greater 
 if the Union was repealed? Would taxation be lighter, would 
 life and property be more secure ? I believe everyone who con- 
 siders the matter must answer the question by saying to him- 
 self that he cannot see what chance there is of it. Why should 
 we take such a momentous plunge when the minds of the educated 
 classes and the professional and mercantile classes of the country 
 are against it ? Every man of reason is against it, and we are 
 bound to come forward in this and every other Synod and protest 
 against it. The matter has not been thought out. If we were 
 to ask any of the supporters of the change what they propose, 
 even the strongest Nationalist, all the answer we could get is 
 that it would bring some unknown future of unmitigated hap- 
 piness to Ireland. Could there be any union between the two 
 countries, one governed by two houses and the other by one ? 
 Now we have heard of an offer of a gigantic bribe — the expro- 
 priation of the landlords. This bears a great similarity to another 
 word — “ appropriation.” Some years ago we heard a good deal 
 of a clause which was called the Appropriation clause. This led to 
 a division of the Liberal Party and a catastrophe to the Govern- 
 ment of the day. Possibly this may happen again. It does not 
 only mean the expropriation of the individuals, but the expro- 
 priation of the principles which the ownership of land and the 
 ownership of property represent. What are those principles ? 
 They are the principles of thrift, of financial success, of commercial 
 enterprise, and of professional ability. If they expropriate the 
 present landlords of Ireland to-day, they will have another set 
 to-morrow. I am happy to think that there is not any great 
 wish on the part of the landlords and owners of property to 
 leave Ireland, or to leave their humble brethren in the country to 
 contend with the difficulties that surround them. I am sure I 
 may say for the majority of the landlords that they would much 
 rather be allowed to stay in the country than be expropriated 
 and bribed to leave. 
 
 There is one other subject to which I wish to call attention, 
 and it is one that appears to be very much misunderstood. I 
 confess myself that until I read in the contemporary publications 
 of what occurred about the year 1799 and 1800 — at the time the 
 Union was carried — I, too, was under a misconception. It is 
 supposed that the Union was carried by fraud and bribery. 
 What did I find ? That column after column of the newspapers 
 of the day were filled by resolutions passed by bodies of men 
 in every county, and of every religious denomination, absolutely 
 
SIR FREDERICK WILLIAM HEYGATE, BART. 
 
 19 - 
 
 calling on the Irish Parliament of the day to carry the Union. 
 One of these requisitions was from the Eoman Catholics of 
 Kilkenny, which was signed by a Eoman Catholic bishop and 
 204 Eoman Catholics of "the city of Kilkenny : — 
 
 “ We are firmly convinced that a complete and entire union between Great 
 Britain and Ireland, founded on equal liberal principles and on a sense of 
 mutual interest and affection, is a measure of wisdom and expediency for 
 this kingdom, and will effectually promote the strength and prosperity of 
 both; and we trust it will afford the surest means of allaying those unhappy 
 distractions, and in time removing those penal exclusions on the score of 
 religion, which have so long prevailed in this country, and by consolidating 
 the resources of both kingdoms oppose the most effectual resistance to the 
 destructive projects of foreign and domestic enemies.” 
 
 There was a similar one from the Eoman Catholics of Cork and 
 from the County of Donegal, bearing over 7,000 signatures : — 
 
 “The principle of a legislative union founded on an equality of trade, 
 equality of protection, of constitutional rights and privilege, and of taxation, 
 according to the respective wealth and resources of both kingdoms, meets with 
 our decided approbation. We do not think the apparent difficulty of detail 
 ought to discourage the efforts to accomplish an object that in our opinion will 
 strengthen the empire at large, allay private discontents and religious ani- 
 mosities, and bury for ever the jealousies that are inseparable from a federal 
 connection between distinct and independent nations.” 
 
 Eesolutions in favour of the Union were signed, in 1799, amongst 
 many others, in the counties of Westmeath, Down, Mayo, Meath, 
 Antrim, Derry, Clare, Limerick, Galway, Cork, Kerry, Tyrone, 
 Tipperary ; in Donegal by 8,000 Eoman Catholics ; from Water- 
 ford and Cork cities, from the merchants of Limerick, from the 
 Eoman Catholics of Longford, the Eoman Catholic Bishop of 
 Ardagh, the Bishops of Elphin, of Dromore, and the Eoman 
 Catholic clergy and gentry of Kilkenny. It might be said that 
 those addresses were all got up, that they were sent from a 
 central body in Dublin. I only put that forward as an answer 
 that might be made, and I would point out the fact that the 
 resolutions were nearly all different. But I would also put it in 
 this way, — What was the condition of Ireland at the time of the 
 Union ? It was in a condition of hopeless misery and wretched- 
 ness. The price of Consols in 1799 was 62f — that is a re- 
 markable fact. The country was just recovering from a bloody 
 rebellion which had been suppressed ; trade and commerce were 
 everywhere paralysed. Nothing could exceed the misfortune and 
 misery of the country. England was paralysed also by the feeble 
 power which permitted a hostile landing on the coast of Ireland. 
 At that moment Pitt interposed, and said that Ireland would be 
 a more prosperous country united to England. What could be 
 
20 
 
 GENERAL SYNOD OF THE CHURCH OF IRELAND. 
 
 more natural than that the country should grasp such a pros- 
 pect ? It is true that for some time the country was burdened 
 with severe taxation, which was afterwards lightened by the 
 consolidation of the Exchequers twenty years later. Objections, 
 of course, came from members of the House of Lords and House 
 of Commons, many of whom thought that Ireland would be un- 
 justly taxed by being connected with England ; but also many 
 of them thought that they then would lose their seats ; and the 
 only fault in connexion with that Union was, that many of 
 those gentlemen had to be conciliated by payment — I think of 
 £15,000 for each seat abolished. But the anticipated 
 benefit has been proved to arise. Let anyone compare the 
 state of Ireland now with what it was before the time of the 
 Union. The proposal to repeal the Union seems now to be 
 perfectly insane. It has been opposed by the judges, by the 
 professional classes, by the magistrates, by the bar, by the 
 Presbyterian and Methodist bodies — in short, by almost every 
 public body in Ireland. The united sense of the country is 
 against it. I might also include the sense and the private 
 wishes of a vast number of the Eoman Catholics of this country. 
 How long ago is it since the Cardinal who ruled over this 
 district declared himself against Home Rule — Cardinal MacCabe ? 
 How long ago is it since the greatest man in the country — 
 the Eight Hon. the present Premier — was opposed to it ? Only 
 six weeks ago he changed his mind. Well, Mr. Gladstone has 
 expressed a wish to know the feelings of the country and the 
 opinions of the country upon this question, and I hope that 
 opinion will go forth to him in no uncertain sound — that the 
 intelligence of the Synod and th^ voice of the Synod are that 
 Mr. Gladstone should abandon any course that would be so insane. 
 The world looks on from the outside with astonishment ; the people 
 of every civilized land rub their eyes with surprise that a small 
 country like Ireland, without much capital, should desire to sepa~ 
 rate from a country like England. The Americans look on and 
 sneer and laugh at the infatuation of the people, and 
 regard the situation as a good safety-valve for the discontent 
 of their own people. In conclusion, I thank the Synod for the 
 patience with which they have listened to me. 
 
 The Lord Bishop of Down. — My Lord Archbishop, before 
 you put the resolution so ably moved by my valued friend, the 
 Bishop of Limerick, and seconded by Sir Frederick Heygate, I 
 desire to make a few remarks. Presiding, as I do, over a diocese 
 containing more than one-fourth of all the members of the 
 Church of Ireland, I wish, in their name and my name, to 
 
THE LORD BISHOP OF DOWN. 
 
 21 
 
 convey to my dear brethren, lay and clerical, in the south and 
 west, our sympathy and, if needs be, the offer of our material 
 support. 
 
 My Lord, though I have presided over the Diocese of Down 
 and Connor and Dromore for over thirty-six years, I cannot tax 
 my memory with ever having taken a part in a political gather- 
 ing or purely party meeting, and, therefore, if I speak my mind 
 perhaps a little freely and a little boldly, and certainly very 
 candidly, I cannot be accused of being a political partisan, much 
 less an ecclesiastical bigot. In dealing with what must more or 
 less be considered something of a political question, we do not 
 desire as a Synod so to treat it ; bufc I think that the time has 
 arrived when there is a limit to forbearance — when apathy 
 becomes cowardice — when cold indifference to the welfare of 
 the country and the sufferings of our fellow-subjects becomes 
 criminal. I cannot believe that it is possible that there is any- 
 one in this room or outside who can look on Home Eule without 
 deep alarm and the most dire foreboding for the future. Why, 
 you ask me, do I say so ? Because if you look to Ireland’s 
 liistory for the last two years, it could be written in disloyalty, in 
 persecutions, in excesses, in outrage, in murders, and in torture 
 of dumb animals. Is this the soil where Home Eule could be 
 expected to bear good fruit, and to bring forth the fruits of 
 righteousness and happiness to a nation ? But we are told by 
 the Prime Minister that he has prepared with Home Eule some 
 concurrent scheme that he proposes as a pioneer and to be a 
 forerunner, and it certainly looks very much like an Irish 
 scheme, because it commences with banishing out of the land 
 all the loyal, all the intelligent, all the educated, all the refined, 
 all the landlords of Ireland, and leaves us to be legislated for by 
 the residue. Now, I do not like to employ too strong language, 
 but I think if you want to find out what the residue are likely to 
 be, you have only to read the Eight Hon. Baron Dowse’s address 
 to the Grand Jury of Kerry. I do not like to describe them, too 
 dreadful as they are ; and though it suited Mr. Morley to say 
 that it is only the private opinion of the judge, still I think he 
 must have been wanting somewhat in candour when he said so — 
 for we all perfectly well know the charges given by the judges 
 are not their private opinions as to the crime of the county, but 
 they are founded upon information placed in their hands by 
 vigilant officers, and we have a right to think that they are accu- 
 rate accounts of the crimes just as they take place. But we are 
 to be somewhat reconciled to this Home Eule. We are to have 
 some material guarantees. Well, I believe there is a great deal 
 of credulity in this world ; but I doubt that there is any credulity 
 so great since Moses, that innocent son of the Vicar of Wake- 
 
22 
 
 GENERAL SYNOD OF THE CHURCH OF IRELAND. 
 
 field — for I don’t believe there is anyone can possibly think that 
 these guarantees can be binding. Now, I will do the Nationalists 
 the justice to say that they never promised any guarantees. 
 They have been above-board, and, differing from them as I do, I 
 give them credit for their open speaking and candour. Mr. 
 Parnell, speaking in Cork, said no one had a right to fix or circum- 
 scribe the limits of a nation’s onward march ; and more re- 
 cently still, when an English statesman asked for guarantees 
 that Ireland would not struggle for complete separation after 
 Repeal of the Union, he (Mr. Parnell) replied that such guaran- 
 tees were out of the question, as he had none to give. At a 
 later period Mr. Parnell said, when speaking at Cincinnati, that 
 “none of us, whether we are in America or in Ireland, or 
 wherever we may be, will be satisfied until we have destroyed 
 the last link which keeps Ireland bound to England.” 
 
 Well, with these open declarations I would like to ask you, 
 what are we to expect ? We have been told clearly and dis- 
 tinctly that we are not to look for guarantees by the parties 
 themselves who had the legislation in this matter. What is the 
 outcome ? Of course, as loyal Churchmen, as we shall ever be, 
 members of a Church with its honoured traditions and historic 
 name, we may have to submit to Home Rule, remembering — “ the 
 powers that be are ordained of God.” But if that Home Rule 
 brings in its train, as I fear it will, persecution and oppres- 
 sion — if it tyrannises over the honoured and loved minority of 
 our co-religionists scattered over the south and west of Ireland — ■ 
 if it deprives them of their civil and religious liberty — then, but 
 not till then, we must contend against it by every constitutional 
 means in our power unto the very end. Better to rest in honour 
 in a patriot’s grave than to live a living death, stripped of our 
 rights and liberties and robbed of our very faith. 
 
 Mr. Richard Bagwell. — My Lord, I am not a Tory nor an 
 Orangeman, nor am I from the province of Ulster ; but I am 
 extremely glad to hear from the two last speakers that the 
 province of Ulster does not intend to throw over their brethren in 
 Munster. They are not going to be fooled and bamboozled by the 
 bribe of a separate Ulster Parliament. There are thousands and 
 hundreds of thousands of Roman Catholics as loyal to Queen 
 Victoria as Lord Howard of Effingham was loyal to Queen Eliza- 
 beth, when he led her fleets against the Spanish Armada ; and of 
 those who are loyal to the Crown, a large proportion are loyal to 
 the Union also. Protestants have no monopoly of loyalty ; but 
 while all loyal people are not Protestants, all Protestants, I am 
 glad to say, are loyal. As regards loyalty to the Union, there 
 is one brilliant exception in this Synod — a distinguished logician. 
 
MR. RICHARD BAGWELL. 
 
 23 
 
 who cannot but admit that he is the exception which proves the 
 rule. I am sure a four-wheeled cab would carry all the disloyal 
 men from this house to College-green. It is said it is all non- 
 sense about the danger to which Protestantism would be exposed ; 
 but that is not the question. There are some Protestant M.Ps. 
 who have taken the oath of allegiance to Mr. Parnell ; but they 
 in no way represent Protestant feeling. Not one of them, I 
 venture to say, would have the slightest chance of election by 
 any Synod, or any council or vestry, of the Church of Ireland, 
 throughout the length and breadth of the country. 
 
 An English stranger who was present at the debates of this 
 Synod, and witnessed the splendid manner in which it con- 
 ducts its business, left it saying — “ I am a Home Ruler, and in 
 favour of handing over Ireland to such a Parliament as that.” 
 The answer was at once given to him by an Irishman — “ If there 
 were an Irish Parliament, not a single member of that Synod 
 would have the slightest chance of a seat in it.” 
 
 There is plenty of good material in every class in Ireland, and 
 an Irish Parliament might produce statesmen at last. At first 
 it would fall into the hands of violent men, and I have no wish 
 to risk revolution on the mere chance of some good coming out of 
 it in the end. The resolution rightly says that this is no question 
 of class. This is not a landlords’ question. The landlords are only 
 a part of the Protestants of Ireland. The Protestant democracy 
 will be appealed to to throw the landlords over. But let them 
 remember M sop’s fable of the wolves who persuaded the sheep 
 to give up their dogs, and then ate up the sheep. 
 
 This question of Repeal of the Union has not been seriously 
 urged for fifty years until three months ago, when a fire-balloon 
 went up from a certain castle near Chester. In 1834 the late 
 Sir Robert Peel delivered an argument against Repeal, every word 
 of which is good now. He said that guarantees were all non- 
 sense. Repeal would necessarily lead to separation, and of the 
 two he preferred separation. English relations with an indepen- 
 dent Ireland would, he said, at least be regulated by known 
 principles of international law, whereas those with a federal 
 Ireland would be regulated by no law at all. 
 
 Macaulay, the great Whig statesman, was of the same opinion. 
 Sydney Smith said that Repeal was nothing but a piece of anti- 
 British villany. 
 
 “ Repeal the Union, restore the Heptarchy,” was Canning’s 
 way of putting it. 
 
 Moore, the poet and historian of Ireland, said, “ You cannot 
 have Home Rule without separation.” 
 
 I have heard it said that we should leave this matter to be 
 dealt with by the people of England. I say we should do no such 
 
24 
 
 GENERAL SYNOD OF THE CHURCH OF IRELAND. 
 
 thing. How could they deal with this subject unless they knew the 
 feeling of the people of Ireland with regard to it ? There is a feel- 
 ing abroad that there is no use opposing Home Rule, because it 
 must come. That is a very dangerous habit of mind. If we dislike 
 Home Rule, we should put our forces into the scale against it. 
 Whether at a Board of Guardians or in the British Parliament, 
 let every man do his part, and then trust to Providence. Every 
 man with a heart and a brain can do something, and is bound to 
 do it at such a time as this. It may be said that, if we fail, our 
 position would be worse than ever. Not a bit of it. There never 
 yet was a victorious army that did not respect a gallant enemy. 
 But if we screw our courage to the sticking-place, we shall not 
 fail. I call upon all Irishmen — I do not care whether they are 
 Protestants or not — to take their share in this matter. They 
 should bear in mind that no guarantees can be given which may 
 not be broken by an omnipotent Parliament. I am certain that 
 Home Rule, that a Parliament established in Dublin, would be 
 ruinous to Ireland, our country, and extremely dangerous to Eng- 
 land, which is also our country ; and that it would be the begin- 
 ning of the process of disintegration of the great British Empire. 
 
 The resolution was unanimously passed. 
 
 The Lord Bishop of Derry and Raphoe. — My Lord, I beg 
 to move : — 
 
 “ That we contemplate with dismay the social disorder, intimidation, and 
 violence which prevail in many parts of Ireland, due to an agitation, the 
 promoters of which would, it is evident, have paramount influence in a 
 separate Irish Parliament. We, therefore, protest — in common with large 
 numbers of our fellow-countrymen who do not belong to our Church — 
 against the establishment of such a Parliament in this land. We are con- 
 vinced that so revolutionary a change would only aggravate the peril to 
 civil and religious liberty, and the insecurity of property and life, which now 
 exist. Nor could any guarantees against such dangers be enforced by the 
 Imperial Government in opposition to the will of an Irish Parliament with- 
 out a recourse to arms.” 
 
 There are two ideas in the very air we breathe which are well 
 calculated to discourage us. One of these is that opposition on 
 our part may only exasperate the majority of our countrymen, 
 and incline them to treat us with less consideration ; therefore, 
 opposition is dangerous. The other idea is still more depressing. 
 In modern politics the party of attack is always stronger than 
 the party of defence ; therefore, opposition is useless. To these 
 two ideas I shall confine my remarks, and in discussing them 
 cover most of the propositions in the resolution which I hold in 
 my hand. Opposition is dangerous. Quite possibly. But, then, 
 acquiescence may lead to consequences which will be fatal to 
 the human side of our organization. Let us consider two 
 
THE LORD BISHOP OF DERRY AND RAPHOE. 
 
 25 
 
 points — our ecclesiastical finance and our ecclesiastical freedom. 
 As regards our finance. When our Church was disestablished, 
 we felt the measure keenly. But the mode in which it was 
 carried out was distinguished by certain benevolent conditions. 
 It supplied a framework around which the broken threads of our 
 temporal relations might be looped and worked again into a con- 
 sistent texture. It was, on the whole, tender to vested rights. 
 It secured certain crumbs and fragments of endowments, and 
 rendered others possible to judicious and self-denying thrift. No 
 political prejudice should hinder us from making the acknow- 
 ledgment. But, under a voluntary system, the solvency of any 
 financial scheme must depend upon the solvency of the commu- 
 nity. In our case, with members not so numerous as we could 
 desire, a very considerable proportion of the “ propertied 
 classes,” interested in land, commerce, banking, and so forth, 
 the financial system must greatly depend upon the prosperity of 
 those classes. Now, our financial scheme could scarcely subsist, 
 certainly could not prosper, under Home Rule, or any conceiv- 
 able modification of it. Finance and taxation would be in 
 hands in which no man of business confides, at whose very 
 shadow, uplifted at a little distance, the delicate barometer of the 
 Bank of Ireland and the railway stocks begins to fall to “ stormy.” 
 We have every reason to suppose that Ireland would be placed 
 under a protective system in its crudest form, enforced by severe 
 penalties. The people would be bitterly disappointed by the 
 meagre performance of splendid promise of prosperity. The 
 landlords would have no more blood for the leeches to suck. 
 Every form of property belongs to a minority ; therefore, no 
 species of property would be secure. Even if we were safe from 
 the terror by night of torture or death, there would be a destruc- 
 tion that wasteth at noonday, the abject yet awful thing at 
 whose name honest men shudder as they pronounce it — bank- 
 ruptcy. Thus, then, our finance would be grievously imperilled. 
 The four chief elements of which it is composed would collapse 
 or disappear, partly from the shrinkage or ruin of property upon 
 which some are secured, partly by the impoverishment or exile 
 of annual contributors. What the locust of disestablishment 
 had spared, the caterpillar and palmerworm of bankruptcy would 
 destroy. 
 
 I cannot help thinking that Mr. Gladstone, if approached by 
 persons calculated to insure his attention, might be disposed to 
 give consideration to this aspect of our case, as one which 
 results from his own action in 1869. I remember hearing him 
 in the House of Commons, with his matchless rhetoric, compare 
 the fall of the Irish Church to the fall of Gloster in Lear — in fancy, 
 an awful altitude ; in fact, his own height upon the sward. My 
 
6 
 
 GENERAL SYNOD OF THE CHURCH OF IRELAND. 
 
 impression of him is that he will listen to representations on 
 behalf of the Church as he would not do for any other. 
 
 I must say one word to those who may think that we make 
 too much of money. I will not dwell upon the melancholy — 
 perhaps, from very intelligible causes, the somewhat too melan- 
 choly — witness of 460 of our clergy, drawn together by the 
 Record, as a salutary warning for the people of England. 
 There never was a time when an educated clergy was so 
 much needed. The human mind in our century has been 
 sharpened into a weapon of precision, and that weapon 
 has been turned against Christianity itself. In such a 
 juncture we may turn with pride to the books that have 
 been written by two honoured members of our Synod — to that 
 book by the Provost of Trinity College, in which an apparently 
 almost boundless amplitude of imagination is yet confined within 
 the strictest lines of the severest logic ; and then again to that 
 other work by another distinguished member of the Synod — the 
 Regius Professor of Divinity — in which every brick has been 
 carefully rung before it was laid, and built up into a majestic 
 fabric of constructive criticism. I cannot but think of these 
 books, and of their value to the Church of Christ. Now, 
 behind all these things there is the liberal education, and behind 
 the liberal education there are the schools and the University, 
 and behind that money. 
 
 But, further, our ecclesiastical liberty might be in danger. 
 There are, I am perfectly sure, very many Roman Catholics, 
 laymen and clergy, to whom we might trust our rights 
 and our freedom. But in every system there are influences 
 which are stronger than individuals ; and we are con- 
 stantly overhearing sentences which scarcely inspire us with 
 confidence. When we hear it laid down as an absolute right 
 that the hierarchy is de jure entitled to a ruling voice in select- 
 ing candidates to be returned to Parliament— entitled also to a 
 clear majority on all commissions, in many of which we have a 
 prescriptive right and important interests — we do not feel quite 
 assured. A certain letter of the Father Provincial of the 
 Jesuits in England has lately seen the light. What does its 
 able writer say ? 4 6 My own opinion is that if Home Rule can 
 
 be gained, it will certainly be a great step towards the destruc- 
 tion of Protestant ascendancy.” That letter was written in June, 
 1878, and must refer to Ireland. But the Irish Church Estab- 
 lishment — the last vestige of Protestant ascendancy — was dead 
 and buried for four years. What can the sentence mean ? It 
 must mean that, in the estimate of the writer, our existence and 
 our ascendancy are convertible terms. That is scarcely a 
 doctrine which reconciles us to Home Rule, even less so than 
 
THE LORD BISHOP OF DERRY AND RAPHOE. 
 
 27 
 
 the dogma of the “ unboiled justice,” which, we are told, must 
 be our portion. Full religious liberty — as M. Guizot pointed 
 out in arguing on behalf of French Roman Catholics — includes 
 two elements, one of which is personal, the other aggregate or 
 ecclesiastical. Religious liberty consists not only in my personal 
 isolated right to worship God according to my conscientious 
 convictions. The general condition of the religious community 
 to which a man belongs, its relations to its ministers and to 
 other communities, its assemblages for debate, present a wide 
 field. Can anyone be assured that his expressions of opinion 
 in our Church gatherings may not be visited with penalties — 
 that our Diocesan, and even our General, Synod may not be 
 crushed as insulting to the majority of Irishmen? I, therefore, 
 conclude that if we acquiesce in Home Rule, we shall acquiesce 
 in that which must be fatal to our finance, and may be fatal to 
 our liberty. 
 
 “ But,” it may be said, “ you have forgotten the guarantees 
 and provisions which may be devised.” We have three reasons 
 for distrusting them. The first is drawn from the fifth article of 
 the Act of Union and from Catholic Emancipation. To those 
 who talk of them we answer. 44 Earth can supply no promises 
 more jealously guarded than those which you have torn up. 
 Heaven itself has no sanctions more august than those which 
 have been violated with a smile.” But we have a second and 
 stronger reason for distrusting guarantees. Facts are stubborn 
 things ; but defined principles are prolific of all future facts. 
 We have now the received casuistry of guarantees. In former 
 generations statesmen accepted the dogma of the continuity of a 
 nation’s moral life. The death of individuals was but an accident 
 in that august conception of a permanent faith, of a great faith, 
 of a great people’s honour. But we have become political 
 Sadducees, for whom the dead live not at all. The dead have 
 no right to bind the living. This is a good specimen of the way 
 in which an empire consolidated by heroic facts falls into pieces 
 before the manufacturers of happy phrases. But, thirdly, even 
 if we look no further forward than the next few months, have 
 the Nationalists any leaders accredited to negotiate with us for 
 guarantees ? No guarantee, therefore, will induce us willingly 
 to accept a separate Parliament, or an elective National Council, 
 or four Councils, or any one-chambered Irish Parliament, which 
 means a one-ideaed vestry. It is the thing, not the name, we 
 object to. Our gorge rises at the tartar emetic, though the 
 doctor soothingly calls it antimonial wine. We desire to remain 
 an integral part of an Imperial people. We and our fathers have 
 lived under the shadow of a great tree, the stately growth of a 
 thousand summers of glory. We will not exchange it for a place 
 
28 
 
 GENERAL SYNOD OF THE CHURCH OF IRELAND. 
 
 under a big tree, which sophisters and experimentalists have 
 taken a fancy to plant head downward, whose sure fall will crush 
 us amidst the inextinguishable laughter of the world. 
 
 The second discouraging idea is that our opposition is use- 
 less, because we are few and feeble. The question, it is 
 
 said by some, is one of arithmetic. But we are really 
 
 part of the vast majority of the Empire. And even from 
 the local standpoint our strength is underrated. We are 
 over 600,000. Our Presbyterian fellow-countrymen, 500,000, 
 are with us. The fact that they are very largely Liberal in their 
 political opinions gives much greater importance to their judg- 
 ment. They have spoken with a Christian moderation and 
 logical precision worthy of their great traditions. I know not 
 what the precise number of the Irish Methodists may be. We may 
 safely assume 60,000, and we have them with us. I will venture 
 to add something more. I have no doubt that we have substan- 
 tially with us about half a million of the Boman Catholics of Ire- 
 land. I will not now speak of the rights of free opinion and liberal 
 education, in which they may find our assistance so important. 
 But I will venture to say to them, as religious men, that the credit 
 of their form of Christianity is at stake. Before the Reformation 
 no candid man can deny that the power of the Roman See 
 was frequently used to alleviate tyranny. Afterwards, however, 
 when the principle of her authority was contested, the adminis- 
 trators of the Roman See contracted an alliance with despotism 
 and arbitrary power. In every case the alliance proved fatal to 
 both — to the temporal absolutism and to the spiritual system 
 which used it as a prop. Men who are most deeply attached to 
 the Roman Church as a teacher of faith wince and writhe under . 
 the facts of history. The old monarchical despotisms have 
 passed away. But a new absolutism is rising, of which the most 
 complete specimen is afforded by Ireland. It is the system of 
 voting mechanically, by platoons, of which ecclesiastics do not 
 hesitate to avail themselves. But will this tyranny last ? No. 
 It cannot last for economical reasons. It will be found before 
 long that the wreck of landlordism is not so much the dawn of a 
 social millennium as of a social ruin. The instructors will be 
 left far behind by the pupils to whom they have taught the first 
 elements of the fascinating science of rebellion, and of the still 
 more fascinating art of confiscation. The people in their misery 
 will turn upon those who spurred their fury, who committed the 
 crime of mistaking a people’s wishes for a people’s wants. Nor 
 can it last morally. Civilized humanity, all that is sound in 
 Christendom, will ask how it has happened that a character so 
 tender, so graceful, so chivalrous, so witty as the Irish, has 
 deteriorated so sadly, become so associated with a hideous 
 
THE LORD BISHOP OF DERRY AND RAPHOE. 
 
 29 
 
 tautology of crime. Thus an apparent alliance of a particular 
 form of the Christian religion with the new democratic despotism 
 will throw as much discredit upon it as ever did the old alliance 
 with monarchical despotism. An apostle speaks of the armour 
 of righteousness on the right hand and on the left. He does not 
 speak of intimidation on the right hand and repudiation on the 
 left. Theological dogma advances to a fatal triumph over a 
 trampled Decalogue. Religion is the royal daughter of heaven. 
 Her crown falls from her head in the sight of men as well 
 as of angels, when she stoops to profit by the crimes which 
 it is her duty to denounce and her glory to subdue. This is 
 not abstract speculation. It is the apprehension of some of the 
 wisest and best men in the Church of Rome. I appeal to one 
 who bore the double aureole of sanctity and genius, the celebrated 
 Dominican, Father Burke, who was educated in the influence of 
 that “ Perugian band ” created by the present Pope. Thus he 
 wrote in 1882 — “ Never was a people so completely changed, and 
 so rapidly. The Ireland that I used to talk of, and love to think 
 of, is completely vanished. Nothing remains for such as me but 
 to die.” A remarkable article in the Spectator (February 27, 
 1886) enables us to fill up certain gaps. Thus Father Burke 
 said — “ There seems nothing to give to the starving children after 
 we have paid him the enormous debt we owe him for making us 
 atheists and murderers.” He assured the writer of the article 
 more than once that “when the revolution he foresaw had 
 wreaked its passion on owners of property, the priesthood would 
 be the next prey.” I hope that there may be some of my 
 countrymen who will take these words as a message of peace 
 from one who neither in the chamber nor elsewhere has been 
 accused of being an ultra-Protestant fanatic. 
 
 I say now what I have always said. For me the day declines.. 
 As I draw near the top of the hill, all who have the sunshine on 
 their face are dear to me, because they are turned to the light. 
 I remember the kindly old priest who said to me as I left my 
 first parish, thirty years ago, “I believe that through one 
 Saviour we shall meet in one heaven.” The historian of the 
 English rebellion tells how, sitting among his friends, Lord 
 Falkland often, after a deep silence and frequent sighs, “would 
 ingeminate, Peace ! peace ! ” I believe that Ireland has many 
 such. There was a time when the Irish policy of England wa& 
 to govern the many by the few. The project now is to govern 
 the few by the many. The true policy is to govern both the few 
 and the many with judgment and justice. Not the less must we 
 contend in this Synod, as we best may, for Church and country. 
 This is not the place for mock heroics. We have no daggers to 
 fling upon the floor. But it is the place for the better heroics of 
 
80 
 
 GENERAL SYNOD OF THE CHURCH OF IRELAND. 
 
 faith, and hope, and charity. There are more with us than we 
 can march through the streets. We have really with us 
 probably a million and three-quarters of people. We are com- 
 passed about with a great cloud of witnesses. We have silent 
 auxiliaries and voiceless prayers among those who are counted 
 as of the hostile camp. Our opponents boast of a majority of 
 more than three to one at the poll. We have ten to one on our 
 side of all that reasons most justly, feels most tenderly, prays 
 most truly, works most honestly. We have been called a “ feeble 
 folk.” Yes ! but we have made our house in the rock. It may 
 be that He whose will is the final arbiter of destiny will turn 
 away the edge of our sword, and give us no victory in the battle. 
 But the history of freedom, like that of truth, is the history of 
 the triumph of minorities. And if we fail, the voice of civilized 
 humanity will be wanting neither in sympathy with us, nor in 
 reprobation of those who shall abandon to an intolerable bondage 
 the sons of fathers whose blood has cemented the temple of 
 British liberty. 
 
 Colonel John ffolliott. — My Lord Archbishop, it is with 
 feelings of pain I rise to second the resolution, because this is 
 the first time that I am aware of, that the word ‘ 4 politics” has 
 been permitted to be uttered in our Synod, and nothing but the 
 very grave peril that menaces us would have induced your Grace 
 and the bishops of our Church to sanction such a course on this 
 occasion. I am unwilling to say a word that can be unneces- 
 sarily offensive to any man ; but I hold it to be the duty of 
 every man to speak distinctly and strongly his opinion of crimes 
 that are abhorrent to Christian morality — and not to Christian 
 morality alone, but to that of the earliest ages of which we have 
 any record, and, uninfluenced by the political fashion of the 
 hour or the godless theories to be found in some magazines and 
 reviews, to express his loathing both of the crimes and of the men 
 who commit or approve them. It is generally admitted that 
 there is but one excuse for rebellion against a settled govern- 
 ment, and that is, that it is intolerably bad. Irishmen have 
 twice within my lifetime thought it necessary to rebel, although 
 living under a constitution and laws, with all their shortcomings, 
 still the best in the world ; and notwithstanding that at the 
 time Ireland was progressing more rapidly in civilization and 
 prosperity than any nation in Europe. 
 
 And now we have two Governments in Ireland — one called 
 the established Government, and another which works in secret 
 and in the dark, and which is intolerably bad. 
 
 If England saw some weak nation in Asia or Africa in the 
 condition in which Ireland now is, I believe cshe would send an 
 
COLONEL JOHN FFOLLIOTT. 
 
 81 
 
 army to restore order. She has shed rivers of blood in Egypt, 
 and spent eleven millions of money, because there was some dis- 
 order there, and because the securities of some Englishmen were 
 in jeopardy. They have made war on Burmah because the 
 Government of that country was intolerably bad ; and England, 
 which centuries ago undertook the responsibility of preserving 
 peace and security for life and property in Ireland, could now, 
 with a stroke of a pen, restore order without a drop of bloodshed, 
 without hardship to any individual. It is not much to demand 
 that it shall be done. We come not here to demand anything 
 unjust, unfair, or unreasonable. We come to proclaim our 
 loyalty, and to claim the performance of the reciprocal obliga- 
 tion, by giving us just government. And yet, when we demand 
 it, we are told that the majority .desire something different. 
 
 Has Government no other duty than to obey the will of a 
 majority in any province of the Empire ? Are wisdom, know- 
 ledge, ability, and the influence earned by an honourable 
 character, to be of no effect ? It is an evil day for the country 
 when all these are thrown away in panic, as a cowardly soldier 
 throws away his arms, and men bow down to the many-headed 
 tyrant. It is sad to see poor men led to look for a better condi- 
 tion by means which can only destroy the sources from which 
 their necessities are supplied, and it is the duty of Government 
 to protect them from the effects of their ignorance. 
 
 And that majority, too, of which we hear so much, is far less 
 than would appear. Mr. Bright, a man who has passed an 
 honoured life as the strenuous supporter of popular rights — the 
 author of the famous expression, “ Force is no remedy” — what 
 does he say of this majority in favour of Home Buie ? That 
 there cannot be at most more than a million of grown-up men 
 in favour of it, and of these there are not one -half who have any 
 knowledge of politics or public matters. 
 
 We are told we are to expect nothing but what are called 
 remedial measures — these so-called remedial measures being to 
 put the authors of the present disorder into a position of greater 
 authority and dignity ; to invest men who have suffered the 
 penalty of murderous conspiracy, or who have fled to escape the 
 punishment due to their crimes, with all the authority now 
 exercised by the Imperial Parliament. What magic is there in 
 Home Rule to change the nature of these men ? Will plenitude 
 of power convert a Robespierre into a Cavour ? 
 
 Remedial measures ! I have never objected to them. I 
 rejoice that I pay for the support of my Church, and that no 
 reproach can be urged against it. I should rejoice that I have 
 been made poor by the operation of the Land Act could I see 
 my neighbours contented and peaceful, with feelings of good- 
 will instead of hatred in their breasts. 
 
82 
 
 GENERAL SYNOD OF THE CHURCH OF IRELAND. 
 
 Coercion, in any true sense of the word, I object to as strongly 
 as any man ; but I hold it absurd to apply the term to provisions 
 necessary to enable just and mild laws to be enforced by the 
 gentle persuasion of the Royal Irish Constabulary. 
 
 I am truly patriotic, but in a somewhat larger sense than that 
 of the so-called Nationalists. Irish patriotism was formerly 
 provincial' — one district and one chief against another ; now it is 
 two-thirds (say) of Ireland against the remaining third, and 
 against England. Yet I do not despise the sentiment ; I should 
 sympathise with it if I saw that it was such as an honest man 
 could allow himself to be associated with ; but I must first see 
 on the side of patriotism sentiments of honesty, justice, and 
 mercy. I agree with the illustrious Irishman, Burke, that 
 “ liberty without honesty and justice is worthless.” But what 
 do I see ? I will not judge men unfairly ; I will judge them by 
 their acts and by their words. Their acts you all know too well ; 
 as for their words, they have one voice — a very gentle voice — in the 
 British Parliament, a voice of villainous import in Ireland, and 
 in America absolutely ferocious. The foremost men in the 
 movement have there spoken of the crime which disgusted Europe, 
 when two blameless and highminded men were butchered in cold 
 blood in our Phoenix Park, as a “ victory ” at which the Irish 
 race rejoiced. 
 
 This is the class of men to whom it is proposed to confide 
 the government of the country ! Their own followers are suf- 
 fering from their tyranny. I have known many cases where men 
 who have been coerced to become prominent men in the National 
 League have expressed their detestation of its tyranny and 
 brutality. 
 
 We are told that there is not so much crime now — there is a 
 truce, as it is called ; but it is only a very partial truce. Cer- 
 tainly we have not had so many murders ; but the tyranny is not 
 in the slightest degree abated. And they have plainly told us that 
 they are ready at any moment to renew their murderous work. 
 It is perfectly clear that the Prime Minister has no confidence as 
 to the future peace of the country, for he has thought it neces- 
 sary to bring in an Act, concurrently with that for Home Rule, 
 for the protection of the owners of land. But supposing the 
 owners of land are protected, what is to become of those loyalists 
 who are not owners of land ? Are they to be left to their fate, 
 or is the country to be restored to order at the point of the 
 bayonet ? I have myself too many good and honoured Roman 
 Catholic friends to allow me to say one word against them, or to 
 think hardly of them. They are as loyal men as any in the 
 country. There have been some utterances of Roman Catholic 
 ecclesiastics lately, and I admit they are perfectly sincere in their 
 
THE LORD BISHOP OF CORK. 
 
 83 
 
 assurances that it is their deliberate intention that there shall 
 be no injustice done to Protestants under Home Rule. I will go 
 further and assume — and it is much to assume — that the whole 
 traditions and character of the Roman Catholic Church are 
 totally different from what they were in the fourteenth or fifteenth 
 century, and in centuries much nearer than that. But at the 
 same time I must remember that there are also the utterances of 
 distinguished ecclesiastics of that Church now living, who speak 
 in a very different tone ; and is it not possible that those ecclesi- 
 astics who now speak words of assurance and moderation may 
 be carried on by a power that they will be unable to resist, and 
 that they may have to revert to the ancient traditions and rules of 
 their Church ? Are they satisfied to try so fearful an experiment 
 as Home Rule ? I am told that we need have no fears, that if 
 any injustice were done us, England would send soldiers to 
 Ireland. Is it not a horrible thing to think that there should be 
 such an alternative, that Ireland would have again to be recon- 
 quered in order to restore peace in it ? May God avert such 
 disasters, either that there should be a base desertion of good 
 and tried men in the country whom England is bound to protect 
 by every tie of honour, or that she should have to resort to the 
 horrible alternative of shedding the blood of misguided men 
 who might have been saved by a more courageous and honour- 
 able policy. 
 
 The Lord Bishop of Cork. — In the county with which I am 
 connected, there are many glorious roads running along by 
 the sea-coast, or winding amongst some of our beautiful moun- 
 tains ; and I often heartily wish that the condition of our 
 country was happier and more peaceful, and that a greater num- 
 ber of friends from across the Channel and other parts of the 
 Empire could be induced to visit it and enjoy the scenery of that 
 lovely region. It is a pleasant thing to sit on the box-seat of 
 one of the coaches and enjoy those glorious views ; but I con- 
 fess I should feel a little anxious if, when passing along some 
 of the roads, I observed one of the horses becoming restive and 
 kicking over the traces, and if the driver said to me, “ I must 
 throw down the reins, I must give up driving ; I cannot go on 
 any longer.” I confess I should feel a little apprehensive, and 
 would come to the conclusion, naturally enough, that the driver 
 was either afraid or unable to control his horses, and that if 
 he did throw down the reins, in all probability the coach 
 would be upset. But the case might be still worse, because if it 
 should so happen that the other animals followed the bad example 
 of the one, and if three of the horses began to kick and plunge, 
 and to exhibit an unruly temper, then if the coachman said to 
 
84 
 
 GENERAL SYNOD OF THE CHURCH OF IRELAND. 
 
 me, “ I must throw down the reins, but I will not do it yet ; I 
 shall wait for a few moments for those tourists that I see coming 
 down the hill — till they take out of the traces the one horse that 
 is working along quietly and patiently, and then I shall throw 
 down the reins.” Well, in that case, I should have a very 
 tolerable certainty indeed that if he followed that course the coach 
 would be upset. That is very much the position in which we are 
 now placed. It seems to me that we must come to this con- 
 clusion when we contemplate what is now proposed — that the 
 great English nation, the great Imperial Parliament, is either 
 afraid or unwilling to take the trouble to govern this country. 
 We see England stretching forth her hands, and taking in new 
 empires under her control ; but she seems unwilling to devote 
 her powers of organization to the control and government of this 
 little country— even supposing that it has proved unruly. And 
 when we look at our own country, and the condition of this 
 island, is there much to lead us to suppose that, if she did attain 
 to self-government, all would go smoothly and well? We who 
 have been abstaining from political discussion and action have 
 been quietly observing what has been going on around us in all 
 parts of this island. We have seen the action of the different 
 elected boards in this country, and has anything we have seen in 
 those boards inclined us to believe that the members who com- 
 pose such boards would constitute a Parliament fit for the 
 government of this country ? Have we not seen continually 
 an inclination to get rid of practical work ? Have we seen the 
 boards of the cities and counties devoting themselves to the 
 real work assigned to them ? Have we not seen them rather 
 ready to throw aside all considerations of this kind, and to devote 
 themselves to political questions, and to devising imaginary 
 remedies for political evils ? Do these things lead us to expect 
 a happy state of things if the government of this country were 
 taken from the Imperial Parliament, and were to devolve upon a 
 local Legislature ? And then we see, as those who dwell 
 in the south — and I, coming from the city of Cork, have seen 
 plenty of it during the past winter — I have seen, under the force 
 of agitation, the people of that city compelled to resist and to 
 oppose a company engaged in trade and commerce which was 
 eminently for the benefit of the whole people. I have seen an 
 Irish company started by the subscriptions of Irish people, and I 
 have seen that company attacked. I have seen the people of 
 the city of Cork driven on by the force of agitation to resist a 
 company that was willing to sell coal at a cheap rate to the poor 
 people during the winter, and in that way I have seen the 
 power of agitation used to do direct injury to the people them- 
 selves. Am I to believe, then, that there is a hopeful or cheerful 
 
THE LORD BISHOP OF CORK. 
 
 85 
 
 prospect for us if the government of the country be transferred 
 from the Imperial to a local Parliament ? 
 
 We have heard a good deal of the system of boycotting, and we 
 know what its horrors have been throughout the country. Can 
 we hide them from ourselves? We should remember what was 
 the origin of that system, and from what that system sprang. 
 Allusion has been already made, in the powerful and splendid 
 language of the Bishop of Derry, to the divisions which exist 
 in this country on religious questions. I think it is well to bring 
 that subject before you. For one of the most serious con- 
 siderations to my mind is this — that the people of England 
 refuse to see — deliberately refuse to see — that the religious 
 difficulty has anything to do with the subject before them. We 
 are often charged with bigotry when we bring in the religious 
 question ; but if a statesman who has to solve the problems 
 presented by the condition of the country shuts his eyes to the 
 religious difficulty, and refuses to see it, that statesman does not 
 take in all the conditions of the problem, and must fail in his 
 efforts. What has been the origin of the system of boycotting 
 in this country ? It arose immediately, no doubt, from a speech 
 made by one of the leaders of the agitation ; but it did not spring 
 from the magic of Mr. Parnell’s power. It sprang originally 
 — and we say it with no feeling of bitterness — from the power of 
 the Boman Catholic system, and the habit of mind formed 
 among those who submit to the discipline of that Church. I 
 doubt if boycotting could continue to exist among a people not 
 accustomed to the discipline of that Church. Those who have 
 been concerned for years in dealing religiously with the people 
 of this country know well that this is the source from which that 
 system sprang. There is a clergyman in my diocese at the present 
 time who was, some years back, living as a curate in the island 
 of Cape Clear ; and during one of the winter seasons there, when 
 the island could not be approached for some weeks, the clergy- 
 man had to burn the chairs of his sitting-room, because he was 
 not allowed to obtain fuel on the island. What was that but 
 the same system that has now sprung into such terrible power 
 throughout the land ? Now, what does that lead us to fear ? It 
 leads us to fear that in the future there will be terrible danger, 
 not only to civil but religious liberty. 
 
 When we hear the utterances of some of the Bomish ecclesi- 
 astics of the present day — powerful men — astute men — we are 
 led to think of the effort they are making to retain their power 
 over the people. No doubt, they think they will wield the power 
 of the democracy, and cause the power of the Church to be 
 triumphant in the midst of the storm. Possibly, however, they 
 may not succeed. Are we to suppose, however, that they will not 
 
36 GENERAL SYNOD OF THE CHURCH OF IRELAND. 
 
 make tlie effort ? A remarkable letter has lately been published, 
 which shews what the views and aims of those are who guide the 
 policy of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland. I have listened 
 to the words uttered by the Bishop of Derry, and as the bishop 
 of a southern diocese, I would make a similar appeal to my fel- 
 low-countrymen from whom we differ, but whose religious 
 convictions we sincerely respect. Do the educated Roman 
 Catholics of this country desire that the control of the education 
 of their sons should be unreservedly placed in the hands of 
 ecclesiastics ? I believe they do not. And is not this one of 
 those things which will inevitably follow in the immediate future 
 if Home Rule be granted ? Do the Nonconformist bodies of 
 England desire this for Ireland ? It appears by their action that 
 they do, forgetful of their own struggles. I appeal to them not 
 to take a selfish view of this great question. We have met here 
 to enter our protest on behalf of civil and religious liberty ; and 
 w r e call upon all who value freedom to stand by us, as we believe 
 that the cause we espouse is that of liberty and truth, and that its 
 triumph will promote the welfare and prosperity of the whole 
 country. 
 
 The resolution was then put to the meeting and unanimously 
 adopted. 
 
 The Lord Bishop of Ossory. — My Lord Archbishop, the terms 
 of the resolution which I wish to bring before the Synod are 
 these : — 
 
 “ That we hereby record our devotion to the interests of the great Empire 
 of which this United Kingdom is the centre — a devotion intensified by our 
 attachment to the country of our birth. We recognise the advantage and 
 honour we derive from our present Imperial position, and the conspicuous 
 place which Irishmen have long held among those to whom the Empire owes 
 its prosperity and its fame. We therefore protest, in the interests both of 
 our country and of the Empire, against any measure that could endanger the 
 legislative Union between Great Britain and Ireland, believing that such a 
 step would lead to the complete separation of these countries, and to the 
 consequent dismemberment and humiliation of the Empire as a whole.” 
 
 I am afraid it may be sometimes thought in this place that 
 the bishops do not speak enough. But that charge cannot 
 be made to-day. Out of the eight , bishops present we have 
 already heard five, and I suppose you wish to have the good 
 half-dozen. I travelled lately in company with a Roman 
 Catholic gentleman, who said, “ You seem to be taking a leaf 
 now out of the book of our bishops. You are calling a meeting 
 of the Synod of your Church, and you are about to have a decla- 
 ration of opinion.” “ Yes,” I replied, “ with this difference — we 
 ask our laity as well as our clergy to come and meet us and 
 express their own opinions.” “ I wish, my Lord,” the gentle- 
 
THE LORD BISHOP OF OSSORY. 
 
 37 
 
 man continued, “ our bishops would do tlie same thing. They 
 would hear something they don’t know, and perhaps they would 
 hear something that they would not like.” It is a happy thing 
 that we — the bishops, clergy, and laity of the Church of Ireland — 
 are now met to express our calm, and fearless, and honest con- 
 victions which we desire to place on record in this important 
 crisis. And here I am reminded to say that I have received a 
 letter from my brother of Cashel — whose duty I am doing — 
 written from Egypt, and expressing his hearty concurrence with 
 the object of this meeting. We would also have had with us, but 
 for ill-health, the Bishops of Meath and Tuam. And we have 
 with us, although I regret he is not on the platform, the Bishop - 
 elect * of Armagh ; so that the whole Bench is accounted for. It 
 has been sometimes thought that we should be Churchmen first 
 and Irishmen afterwards ; but my opinion is that we should be 
 Churchmen and Irishmen at the same time. It is because we 
 feel that the interests of our country are inseparably bound up 
 with our interests as a Church, that we have met together to express 
 our loyal, religious patriotism. Sometimes it is thought that be- 
 cause of our Imperial connexion we cease to be patriots and to love 
 our own country. But we may ask does any Scotchman — and 
 Scotchmen have noble and glorious recollections — they had a race 
 of kings long after the Irish kings ceased to exist — love his country 
 less, the “ land of brown heath and shaggy wood,” because Scot- 
 land is represented in the Imperial Parliament ? Do Welshmen, 
 who have national peculiarities and traditions of their own, and 
 a language which they have done more to preserve than has been 
 done by Irishmen to preserve the Irish language, consider them- 
 selves less in love with their Welsh Principality, because of their 
 Imperial connexion ? No ; they are patriots in the truest sense, 
 and so are we ; and our love for our country is quite as strong as 
 and at the same time much wiser than that of those who chal- 
 lenge it. The resolution says, and says truly, that our devotion 
 is “ intensified by our attachment to the country of our birth.” 
 And why ? Because Irishmen have for ages shared the glory, and 
 the honour, and the advantages of the Imperial connexion ; and 
 because there are no fields of enterprise, no fields of discovery, 
 no positions of honour, in which they are not found side by side 
 with their English brethren. Looking back.overthe roll of illus- 
 trious Irishmen who have won their way to fame, even in our 
 own day, side by side with their English brethren, we find the 
 Lawrences, the Burkes, the Napiers and the Wellesleys, the 
 M‘Clures and the M‘Clintocks, the Dufferins and the Wolseleys, 
 and hosts of others. Are we ready to separate ourselves from 
 
 * Very Rev. William Reeves, d.d., Dean of Armagh. 
 
 D 
 
88 
 
 GENERAL SYNOD OF THE CHURCH OF IRELAND. 
 
 the glorious history of the Empire, and sink down to the level of 
 a petty State? We are not content to do that, and, therefore, 
 we stand together for the great connexion which has brought 
 us such honour and advantage. It is not, however, from merely 
 selfish motives that we do this. We believe that any weakening 
 or severance of the tie would be injurious to Great Britain as 
 well as to ourselves. We believe it would lead to misunderstand- 
 ings and misconceptions, and eventually to unfortunate collisions 
 which we would all deplore, and therefore our very patriotism 
 makes it desirable to maintain the connexion. If once the silly 
 cry of “ Ireland for the Irish ” takes the form of legislative acts 
 of Home Rule or Repeal of the Union, there will probably be 
 another cry heard— and an unfortunate cry it would be for the 
 Irish people — the cry of “ England for the English.” It has 
 been said that guarantees with regard to future policy in this 
 country could not be given, and it has been well observed that 
 no guarantees have ever been promised. It may then be well 
 to ask who are the men who would be paramount in any Parlia- 
 ment that might be the result of the present agitation ? I hold 
 in my hand a document, and it is no breach of confidence to refer 
 to it, because it was a public declaration made at a very impor- 
 tant time. It is the famous manifesto which issued from Kil- 
 mainham Gaol. I need not read the names attached to it (“ read, 
 read”). Well, as you wish me to read them, first there was Charles 
 Stewart Parnell, President, Kilmainham Gaol ; and then followed — 
 A. J. Kettle, Honorary Secretary, Kilmainham Gaol ; Michael 
 Davit t, Honorary Secretary, Portland Prison ; Thomas Brennan, 
 Honorary Secretary, Kilmainham Gaol; John Dillon, Head 
 Organizer, Kilmainham Gaol ; Thomas Sexton, Head Organizer, 
 Kilmainham Gaol ; and Patrick Egan, Treasurer, Paris. That 
 gentleman managed, somehow, to keep out of danger. Now, 
 why do I refer to this ? The great doctrine taught in this docu- 
 ment was absolution from the necessity of paying rent ; and a 
 very palatable doctrine it was to many. Let me cull one or two 
 sentences from this manifesto. “ One constitutional weapon 
 alone,” it says, “ now remains in the hands of the Irish National 
 Land League. It is the strongest, the swiftest, the most irresist- 
 ible of all.” Then it goes on to say that the executive of the 
 Land League “ feels bound to advise the tenant-farmers of Ire- 
 land from this forth to pay no rent under any circumstances to 
 their landlords until the Government relinquishes the exist- 
 ing system of terrorism.” They might as well say to us in 
 this Synod, that we are not to pay our tailors until it is seen 
 whether Mr. Gladstone passes the Act which he is holding in 
 terror over us. The manifesto continues : “ Do not suffer your- 
 selves to be intimidated by threats of military violence. It is as 
 
THE LORD BISHOP OF OSSQRY. 
 
 89 
 
 lawful to refuse to pay rents as it is to receive them.’’ “ One 
 more crowning struggle for your land, your homes, your lives ” — 
 “ Stand together in the face of the brutal and cowardly enemies 
 of your race ; pay no rents under any pretext.” This is simply 
 the gospel of Communism. It is not repeal of the Union, but 
 repeal of the Eighth Commandment ! It contains the very essence 
 of Socialism. I do not believe that since the days of Wat Tyler 
 there was anything that struck more at the root of social order and 
 religion than that document. Yet that was the doctrine preached 
 by the men who now seek to get the government of Ireland into 
 their own hands. It was not surprising when that document 
 appeared, to find that it met with a withering protest from an 
 ecclesiastic of the Church of Rome. Archbishop Croke, of Cashel 
 (a prelate not inclined to be too severe on the Home Rule party), 
 declared that he had read it with pain and dismay — that it struck 
 at the very root of morals and religion, and that nothing could 
 come of it but disintegration and defeat. Neither was it surprising 
 to find that, not long after that document made its appearance, 
 there came a rescript from a higher authority at Rome desiring 
 the priesthood of this country not to lend their countenance to the 
 tribute which was got up in favour of the first signatory to that 
 manifesto. But we are surprised that the men who signed this dis- 
 honest manifesto now come forward to ask us to trust them and 
 give them our confidence. It is surprising that such men, after 
 ignoring the commandments of the Decalogue, and striking at 
 the root of all interest between man and man, should ask us to 
 put the smallest trust in their protestations or their promises. 
 Even if we were fully convinced that legislative independence 
 was the best thing for our native land, it is not to men of this 
 stamp, or of these principles (or rather want of principles), that 
 we would entrust our liberty or our lives. Are we ready to 
 accept them as our rulers, with an irresponsible dictator at their 
 head, who holds the manhood of Ireland in leading-strings, and 
 has shown by the manifesto which I have just quoted that he 
 and his followers are ready to keep or to break public engage- 
 ments just as it may best suit their ulterior purposes ? Not if 
 we can help it. It is no wonder when patriotism puts on the 
 robes of dishonesty, that hatred, malice, and uncharitableness 
 should follow in its wake. We need not speak of the evils that 
 followed the appearance of that document. The history of our 
 country, ever since, has been such as to fill us with shame, pity, 
 and indignation ; shame that our country should be dishonoured 
 in the face of the world ; pity for a generous but misguided people 
 who have been so demoralized by agitation ; and indignation 
 against those who have been throwing them back into a kind of 
 primitive barbarism. The preachers of this new gospel have gone 
 
40 
 
 GENERAL SYNOD OF THE CHURCH OF IRELAND. 
 
 forth ; one of them came to my own district of Kilkenny, to preach 
 the gospel of boycotting. And he told his audience that “ there was 
 no law of God or man against that system.” Surely if the laws 
 of man are not opposed to boycotting — and I leave that for the 
 consideration of the magistrate — boycotting is opposed to the 
 laws of Him who taught us “ to do unto others as we would they 
 should do unto us,” and who went further and said, “ Love your 
 enemies, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that 
 despitefully use and persecute you.” Yet this gospel of boycotting 
 is the gospel preached by the men who would be paramount in 
 any Parliament set up in this country. So long as the maxim 
 remains for us on the sacred page — “ Righteousness exalteth a 
 nation ” — it would be impossible for us to believe that such men 
 could lead this country to honour, prosperity, or repose. As for 
 our own Church, let us put our trust in Him who has carried us 
 through darker days even than those through which we are now 
 passing. Let us cleave fast to her and to her principles. She is not 
 a Latin Church, she is not a Greek Church, and she is not even 
 an English Church. She is the Church of Ireland by her ancient 
 traditions and her glorious descent. I am glad to hear the state- 
 ment made by a layman that the laity of the country are not 
 disposed to desert their country or their Church in the hour of 
 danger. They have a serious responsibility cast upon them, and 
 never did that responsibility weigh upon them more than now T . 
 I will close by saying to all my brethren, lay and clerical, in the 
 words of the Psalmist, full as they are of exhortation, encourage- 
 ment, and hope — “ Put thou thy trust in the Lord, and be doing 
 good ; dwell in the land, and verily thou shalt be fed.” 
 
 Rev. George Salmon, d.d., f.r.s. — My Lord, I have not 
 come forward to speak on this occasion of my own choice, for 
 speechmaking is not in my line ; but when called on to take a 
 part in the proceedings, I have not felt myself at liberty to 
 refuse. An educated man living in this country would have 
 cause to be ashamed if he took no interest in the question, what 
 measures would promote its welfare, or if he did not care to form 
 an opinion on the subject ; and equal cause to be ashamed if he 
 was afraid to express his opinion when asked it by those who 
 had a right to demand it of him. It really requires some 
 courage now for one who thinks as I do to speak his mind on 
 this subject; for the conditions of free speaking have changed a 
 good deal from what I can remember. I remember when a man 
 who expressed hostility to England, and a desire for separation 
 from her, if he did not make himself liable to an action for sedi- 
 tion, would incur severe opprobrium for his disloyalty. Now a 
 man who avows his belief that the happiness of Ireland would 
 
REV. GEORGE SALMON, D.D. 
 
 41 
 
 best be promoted by drawing close the ties that bind her to 
 England, becomes a mark for obloquy and misrepresentation ; 
 he is said not to love his country ; he is said to be an enemy to 
 Ireland. 
 
 Would you be thought an enemy to a young lady if you 
 expressed to her your belief that she would be happier married 
 than single ? Suppose you were consulted by a young married 
 lady, a friend of yours, who was not on as good terms with her 
 husband as you could wish her to be ; suppose she was anxious 
 for a separation, and talked much of the independence she would 
 gain by it, would you be thought her enemy, would you be 
 thought to have no concern for her welfare, if you told her that 
 she was under a delusion — that separation would be injurious to 
 both parties, and to her would mean loss of wealth, worldly 
 position, respectability, and that her happiness depended on 
 reconciling her differences with her consort ? It is because I 
 love Ireland that I protest against a separation which, I believe, 
 would be injurious to England and fatal to Ireland. 
 
 As for the effects on England, we have only to remember that 
 the process by which all nations have become great has been by 
 absorbing small nationalities. Canning cried, “ Eepeal the 
 Union, restore the Heptarchy/’ What place would England 
 have had in the world’s history if the Heptarchy had not been 
 absorbed ? Still, even in the time of Elizabeth, England was 
 but a poor country, owing the preservation of her national 
 existence to the mutual jealousies of France and Spain. Her 
 union with Scotland was a necessary condition for her greatness. 
 How Scotch patriots fought against that union ; how bitter was 
 the feeling between the two countries even a hundred years ago ! 
 Is there any Scotchman now who regrets that union, or who 
 would think it anything short of calamitous to his country if it 
 had not taken place ? How has France become great but by 
 the welding of separate provinces into a homogeneous mass ? 
 The Plantagenet kings won triumphs in France ; they did not 
 conquer what we now call France, but a country weak because 
 it was divided. How was Prussia able, in our own time, to 
 make retaliation for the humiliations she suffered at the hands 
 of the great Napoleon? He triumphed over a Germany helpless 
 because split up into a number of petty, mutually jealous states. 
 But in our day Prussia, fighting a hard battle against what was 
 called “ Particularisms,” forced a number of these little states, in 
 many cases very sore against their will, into one body, and when 
 Germany was thus consolidated, France could no longer make 
 head against her. I will not recall the story how Italy has in 
 our time been transformed from being a “ geographical expres- 
 sion,” to a country entitled to a place in the family of great 
 
42 
 
 GENERAL SYNOD OF THE CHURCH OF IRELAND. 
 
 European nations. But I will remind you of what you can 
 remember took place in America. As far as I understand the 
 law of their Constitution, the Southern States had a perfect right 
 to separate from the Northern if they were so minded. But the 
 Northern States, when asked to submit to such a separation, 
 decided that civil war was preferable. You know what sacrifices 
 of money, of valuable lives, were necessary to conquer the heroic 
 resistance of the South. But what evil or inconvenience that the 
 North could have suffered from the existence of an independent 
 nation in the South is within many degrees comparable to the 
 danger to England from an independent Ireland ? Just imagine 
 that England was at war. Would Ireland be disposed to con- 
 tribute men or money to a war in which she might feel no 
 interest, and in the making of which she had had no voice ? Is 
 it certain that she would not throw open her harbours and in 
 other ways give aid and comfort to the enemies of England ? The 
 first step England w T ould have to take in any war would be the 
 reconquest of Ireland. And as for what is publicly avowed as 
 likely to happen— a peaceful war of tariffs — would that be 
 a small evil ? 
 
 There are those who think that some middle term could be 
 found between preservation of the Union and separation — some 
 way of refusing what people want, and contenting them by 
 giving them what they don’t want. It has been talked of 
 setting up a Parliament in Dublin for the purpose of passing 
 local bills — as if what was now stirring the minds of the Irish 
 people was the grievance that capitalists getting up a railway 
 bill have to pay a little too much in preliminary expenses — or a 
 Parliament guarded by restrictions. Every one of these restric- 
 tions would be denounced as a badge of servitude, and would 
 give rise to a new agitation. Either the restrictions would 
 never come into play, and then they would be a gratuitous cause 
 of offence and heartburning, or else they would amount to a 
 veto put by the English Parliament on something for which the 
 Irish Parliament had solemnly expressed its desire, and then the 
 conflict between the two countries would be revived in a far 
 more formidable shape than at present. 
 
 I have reminded you how in our generation other countries 
 have given us examples of the process by which weak nations 
 become strong, small nations become great. Must it be that our 
 generation is also to see England illustrate the process by which 
 great nations become small, when they fall to pieces because they 
 have become too flabby to have energy to hold their component 
 parts together? One man cannot understand another man’s 
 temptations. I do not understand the temptations of ambition. 
 I am unable to conceive how a statesman advanced in life could 
 
REV. GEORGE SALMON, D.D. 
 
 48 
 
 feel an inducement to grasp at a few months’ uncertain, un- 
 comfortable tenure of office merely that he might go down to 
 posterity as having inaugurated the disintegration of the British 
 Empire. 
 
 But there are many in this country who would not be much 
 concerned to find it proved to them that England would be injured 
 by a separation. What then ? Ireland would gain ; she would 
 become a nation. How people will let themselves be deluded by 
 words ! A nation ! What kind of a nation ? A nation without 
 an army, without a navy, without military stores, with little money 
 to provide them, with unprotected ports, lying within three hours’ 
 sail of another more numerous and powerful nation, possessed of 
 army and navy and every means of making its neighbour obey 
 its will. That was the position Napoleon planned for England 
 in the early part of this century. He succeeded in making his 
 military power predominant ; but England by means of her navy 
 preserved her independence. But suppose Napoleon had succeeded 
 in making himself as powerful by sea as he was by land, would 
 England have been a nation then ? She might call herself a 
 nation ; but in real truth she would have been a province of 
 France. It makes no difference whether Napoleon would have 
 formally declared her so, or whether he would have set up one of 
 his brothers as her sovereign, or graciously have permitted her 
 to be governed by native rulers. Call her as you please, she 
 would have been no nation, but a province. 
 
 Perhaps I may be told that the analogy I have cited is not a 
 fair one — that England would have no wish to interfere with us 
 as Napoleon would have interfered with England. I dare say 
 not. Napoleon would surely, if he could, have robbed England ; 
 for England, even then, was well worth robbing ; but the wealth 
 of Ireland, it must be owned, offers little temptation to invaders. 
 But just think what a noble ambition is held out to us. To be a 
 nation upon sufferance, existing through the contemptuous 
 toleration of our neighbours, not meddled with because we were 
 too poor to offer any money, too feeble to be able to render any 
 services which it would be thought worth while to exact — a tolera- 
 tion which we might enjoy as long as we were paupers, but which 
 we should forfeit if ever we made ourselves rich and prosperous. 
 Compare with that the position we enjoy at present : members 
 on equal terms of a nation holding a foremost rank among the 
 peoples of the world. There is no triumph she can gain in 
 which we may not have our full share — no place of honour in her 
 councils to which we may not aspire. I was born a citizen of 
 a great nation : I do not want to become a citizen of what would 
 be one of the most beggarly nations on the earth. 
 
 Let me say something as to the financial position of a separated 
 
44 
 
 GENERAL SYNOD OF THE CHURCH OF IRELAND. 
 
 Ireland. Some of you, perhaps, may have an opportunity of 
 judging. Some of you are landlords, and perhaps you may be 
 bought out. Which would you prefer — to invest what may be 
 given you in three per cent, consols, guaranteed by the English 
 Parliament, or in a six per cent, stock guaranteed by an Irish 
 Parliament ? I cannot tell which you would prefer ; but I can 
 very well judge which English capitalists would prefer. I judge 
 it from what you all know — the decline in the Stock Exchange 
 quotations of Irish securities since the commencement of this 
 agitation. That decline just means this — that Englishmen who 
 had invested their money in what were thought the best Irish 
 securities are now anxious to get it back again, and that Irish- 
 men too, if they have money to invest, prefer to send it out of 
 the country. See what injury this has done us. We were a 
 poor country ; industrial enterprise might have made us rich ; 
 but for such enterprise capital and confidence are necessary ; 
 and confidence has been annihilated, and capital driven away. 
 Just at this moment there is a glut of capital in England ; in- 
 vestors are anxiously inquiring what they can do with their 
 money ; but one thing they will not do with it — send it to Ireland. 
 And we must not wonder, for capital is a timid thing. No man 
 likes to send his money where he does not see a reasonable 
 prospect of getting it back again. Now those who have raised 
 the cry of No Landlordism may easily raise the cry of No Creditor- 
 ism. If a man who gives his land to raise a crop is not entitled 
 to get it back again after the crop has been gathered, why is the 
 man who gives his money to found an industry to be entitled to 
 get it back again after the industry has been founded? An English 
 investor in Irish Consols might fear to be taxed as an absentee, 
 or denounced as a bloodsucker, draining the resources of the 
 country. So I see little probability that the securities of an 
 Irish Government would stand at a higher level in commercial 
 markets than Turkish or Egyptians. 
 
 Yet an Irish Government would badly want money from abroad, 
 for financial difficulties would be some of the first they would be 
 troubled with. I will not enquire whether England would insist 
 on Ireland sharing any of the responsibility of the Imperial debt ; 
 for I fear the mere working of the ordinary machinery of 
 Government would be felt to be an oppressive burden. One 
 addition to our present expenditure you must certainly calculate 
 on. When Irish independence has been obtained, and American 
 contributions cease to flow in, what is to become of those members 
 of Parliament whom these contributions enable to lead a pleasant 
 existence? They will feel that the labourer is worthy of his hire ; 
 and, no doubt, one of the first additions to the National burdens 
 will be a provision for the payment of all members of Parliament. 
 
REV. GEORGE SALMON, D.D. 
 
 45 
 
 Still better rewards must be provided for the more deserving. 
 The addition of £1,000 a-year made to the salary of the chief 
 magistrate of our heavily-taxed city is a fair specimen of what 
 may be expected from future legislators. And I have no doubt 
 that measures for the relief of distress would demand the attention 
 of our new Government. We have seen in our own city the 
 growth of distress as agitation has proceeded, as those who used 
 to spend money here now have it no longer to spend, and as em- 
 ployment fails through the paralysis of commercial enterprise. 
 I have no doubt that like distress would prevail in a separated 
 Ireland, and that it would only be increased by nostrums invented 
 to appease a people crying out under suffering, of the cause of 
 which they were ignorant. There would be increased taxation, 
 tempting people who had money to carry it out of the country 
 if they were able. But I suppose the favourite nostrum would 
 be protection of Irish industries. That would mean that any of 
 you crossing to England would have the comfort of having his 
 luggage searched going and returning ; it would mean the form- 
 ation of a new army of tide-waiters and revenue officers ; it 
 would mean a heavy indirect taxation of people forced to pay 
 more than the value for a number of articles made under the 
 disadvantage of inferior skill and little capital. As Ireland thus 
 became a disadvantageous country to live in, there would be a 
 constant drain from it of those whom it would be most desirable 
 to keep. I don’t say they would all go at once : many would 
 not be able to move without too heavy loss ; but when they come 
 to put their sons out into the world, they will not choose them to 
 remain in Ireland. 
 
 There are other troubles with which a new Irish Government 
 would have to contend. First, there are the labouring classes. 
 “ No landlordism ” just means the perpetual serfdom of the 
 labouring classes. It means that no one is to be allowed to have 
 a farm unless he has money enough to buy the land out-and-out. 
 Will the labouring classes be satisfied with that state of things? 
 I think not ; and I think their discontent likely to give serious 
 trouble to their governors. And then we all know that a large 
 section of the population will be seriously disaffected to the new 
 Government. What I have heard of the state of feeling in Ulster 
 inspires me with the very gravest apprehensions that the sub- 
 mission of that province cannot be obtained without bloodshed. 
 And why should they be asked to submit? The question is, Are 
 the minority bound to submit to the will of the majority ? If 
 so, Mr. Parnell and his followers are in the Empire a very small 
 minority, and it is for them to submit. If not, why should not 
 Ulster have its separate government, as in former days many 
 kings reigned in separate parts of Ireland ? 
 
46 
 
 GENERAL SYNOD OF THE CHURCH OF IRELAND. 
 
 But I hear it asked, Why should not Irishmen be allowed to 
 settle their own affairs ? By Irishmen is meant Mr. Parnell and 
 his followers : for I find that anyone who does not agree with 
 them, no matter how long he and his ancestors may have lived 
 in this country, is not recognised as an Irishman, and is only 
 counted one of the English garrison. Well, I do not in the least 
 object to Mr. Parnell and Co. settling their own affairs; but I do 
 object to their settling my affairs — your affairs — our affairs. 
 
 But I am asked, Why should not Protestants be willing to 
 trust their Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen? And a good 
 friend of mine tells me of the kindness, and forbearance, and 
 generosity with which we should be treated. 
 
 But I don’t want to be under the necessity of depending on 
 the kindness or generosity of anyone. Such security as we have 
 for our lives and properties at present, we have without having 
 to thank anyone’s forbearance, and we wish to keep it. If I 
 went to the Zoological Gardens, the lion’s keeper might tell me 
 what a very kind and generous beast the animal was. He might 
 put his head in his mouth, and ask me to admire the lion’s great 
 forbearance. But if he invited me to do the same, I should 
 thank him, but tell him I had rather not. 
 
 I will give you some reasons showing that our distrust is 
 reasonable. And first, let me ask what an Irish Parliament is 
 wanted for. It must be in order to do something which an 
 English Parliament will not. It is really the small confidence I 
 have in the English Parliament which fills me with immense 
 terror as to the proceedings of an Irish Parliament. I can con- 
 ceive nothing in reason, or a good deal beyond reason, that 
 Mr. Parnell could not get done by the present Parliament. In 
 the conflict of parties, politicians on both sides think more of 
 what will put themselves and their party in power, than of what 
 will best promote the interests of the Empire ; and one who com- 
 mands eighty-six votes in the House of Commons will not be 
 lightly refused any demand. And English people, in general, 
 know so little, and care so little, about Irish affairs, that a pro- 
 posal about Ireland may be very flagrantly unjust, and yet excite 
 little English indignation or opposition. You must consider 
 what things an English Parliament is likely to refuse, in order 
 to judge how very outrageous the plans must be which it requires 
 an Irish Parliament to carry into law. 
 
 A second cause for alarm is what we see at present of the 
 conduct of those who will have a predominant influence in the 
 election of an Irish Parliament. When the Land Leaguers get 
 the power of making laws, are they likely to give those who 
 differ from them that liberty of speech and action which they 
 take from them at present in defiance of law ? A man is liable 
 
REV. GEORGE SALMON, D.D. 
 
 47 
 
 to be boycotted if lie obeys the law of the land and the laws of 
 honesty, and pays his rent. I know of cases where men who 
 have not the least sympathy with the League have found them- 
 selves forced to become members of it on pain of not being able 
 to carry on their business ; for a law has been enacted, such as 
 we read of in the Apocalypse, that no man shall be allowed to 
 buy or sell who has not the mark of the beast in his forehead. 
 It may be expected, then, that if they get more power, they will 
 insist that the mark of the beast shall be made fuller and blacker. 
 Here in Dublin, and in Ulster, we Protestants are numerous 
 enough to be able to give each other protection ; but what 
 religious liberty is likely to be enjoyed by isolated Protestants in 
 country districts in the south ? And even here if we are allowed 
 liberty of thought, I am not so sure that we shall be allowed liberty 
 of speech. I fear we may be allowed to hold our convictions 
 only on condition of not giving utterance to them. Then what 
 protection is there likely to be for the property of Protestant 
 institutions ? Trinity College >vas a Protestant institution, 
 founded by a Protestant sovereign, and with Protestant objects. 
 We now throw our doors open freely to everybody, and men of 
 all religions have equal rights to all our honours and prizes. 
 Yet Archbishop Walsh declared the other day that if he were 
 offered a sum of money for the foundation of a University of his 
 own, the “ bribe” ought to be rejected. His new University 
 could not possess our prestige, and if we were suffered to continue 
 to exist, it would be overshadowed by our reputation. The 
 nobleman who bought “ Punch ” from the showman entertained 
 just as sensible an idea as one who thinks that if he got posses- 
 sion of our University, he would get possession of our prestige, 
 or that its reputation could survive after it had fallen into the 
 hands of obscurantists. But I cannot be secure that this or any 
 other injustice may not be perpetrated by men whose favourite 
 study is what they call Irish History ; that is to say, a one-sided 
 and exaggerated account of wrongs suffered by their forefathers, 
 for which, if they were twice as great, we of this generation are 
 not responsible. They seem to take these accounts as a guide 
 to their conduct, and to think that if they do not exact a full 
 measure of retaliation, they will be entitled to claim credit for 
 forbearance and liberality. 
 
 I have no doubt that the result of what is called Home Buie 
 would be the driving out much of the wealth and much of the 
 intelligence of the country. Our Church would be the first to 
 feel the loss ; for to us the landlords mostly belong, whom 
 indeed it has already been proposed to buy out. The next to 
 feel it would be the Presbyterians and the other Protestant sects. 
 If the support we gave them were removed, they would find it 
 
48 
 
 GENERAL SYNOD OF THE CHURCH OF IRELAND. 
 
 difficult to sustain the pressure of a dominant majority. The 
 next to suffer would be the cultured and intelligent lay Roman 
 Catholics, who would find the atmosphere of the country stifling, 
 if we were forced to desert it. I have many good friends among 
 them ; but I do not know one who is a Home Ruler. And lastly, 
 the Roman Catholic clergy would find, if we departed, what 
 influence our presence has exercised in keeping religion of any 
 kind alive in the land. Some of them were short-sighted enough 
 to triumph when our Church was disestablished and disendowed. 
 Did our depression bring any increase of power to them ? Why, 
 I remember how, when a seat in Parliament was vacant, the 
 Roman Catholic bishop and clergy met in committee, and who- 
 ever they nominated was the member. Who in Ireland nominates 
 members of Parliament now ? They do not lead the present 
 movement, but follow it, joining in it because they would be 
 deserted if they didn’t. It is only with reserve that Irishmen 
 now will obey even the Pope. When the Roman Catholic 
 Archbishopric of Dublin was vacant, the Pope wished that 
 Dr. Moran should be appointed ; Mr. Parnell wished that it 
 should be Dr. Walsh. You know who was appointed. I am 
 quite sure that under Home Rule the Roman Catholic priests 
 would find that they had less influence than now. Some honours 
 and privileges might be given them at first, by way of offering an 
 affront to Protestant England ; but the inevitable course of our 
 revolution would be the same as that of the French Revolution, 
 and if it began by a triumph of Romanism, it would end in a 
 triumph of Infidelity. 
 
 In conclusion, I cannot help expressing my surprise that the 
 Liberal party in England have not learned some modesty from 
 the failure of their former predictions. First it was the 
 Disestablishment of our Church which was to give peace and 
 contentment to Ireland. That did not succeed, and it was 
 followed by a Land Act a year or two afterwards. But the 
 predictions of the golden days that were to follow the introduction 
 of religious equality were not realized. The country became 
 more disturbed and more discontented. But the Liberal poli- 
 ticians declared — We must have faith in our remedies. We must 
 not despair of them because they do not produce their effect all 
 at once. Let us administer a stronger dose. Then followed the 
 Land Act of 1881. But what has been the result? The country 
 felt no gratitude to its doctors. Mr. Gladstone had not a single 
 supporter returned at the last election. I think he must be 
 tempted to echo what Archbishop Whately was once provoked 
 to say: “Do you know how they spell ‘grateful’ in Ireland? 
 4 G, r, e, a, t f, oo, 1.’ ” And the state of the country has become 
 such that there are parts of it where the anarchy can only be 
 
THE DEAN OF CLONFERT. 
 
 49 
 
 described as a lapse from civilization to barbarism. Yet the 
 doctors who have brought their patient to this ask us to trust 
 their science, and allow them now to apply a remedy the appli- 
 cation of which fills all prudent men with horror. I know no 
 theorists, since Dr. Sangrado, so resolved not to let their faith be 
 shaken by the teaching of experience. His remedy, you remem- 
 ber, was bleeding and drinking hot water. When the patient 
 got worse, he ordered more bleeding and more hot water. When 
 he was at the point of death, still more bleeding and more hot 
 water. When he died, the doctor declared it was because he had 
 not been bled enough, or had not enough of hot water. 
 
 I have said nothing as to the danger which a Repeal of the 
 Union would cause to the financial interests of our Church, 
 which has three millions invested on the security of Irish land, 
 and which is threatened with a far heavier loss than that of any 
 invested capital — the loss of the people who gave us that capital, 
 and who, if allowed to remain here, and in possession of their 
 properties, might give us as much more, I leave others to speak 
 of that. I content myself with raising my voice as a citizen in 
 protest against the disintegration of the great Empire to which I 
 belong. 
 
 The Dean of Clonfert supported the resolution, and said : — 
 Many attempts have been made in recent years to soothe Irish 
 discontent, and on each occasion it was confidently expected 
 that the proposed measure, when passed, would reconcile the 
 Irish race to England. The Disestablishment of the Church 
 was to be, in Mr. Gladstone’s phrase, “ a message of peace to 
 Ireland.” Mr. Bright was confident that it would “ sweeten the 
 breath of the Irish people.” But such expectations were sig- 
 nally disappointed. Then the first Land Act, then the second, 
 was to remove all remaining source of bitterness ; and when 
 these were passed, there was to be harmony between the two 
 countries. They were passed, and the agitation against the 
 English connection became more furious in consequence of these 
 very successes which it had attained. And now it is discovered 
 by the so-called statesmen who manage our affairs, that the 
 supreme remedy is an Irish Parliament — a perilous experiment, 
 which would be quite counter to the movement of the age. For 
 now, all over the world, men are massing together into great 
 political bodies, and it cannot be safe for this United Kingdom 
 to tamper with its own internal union in presence of the great 
 States which confront it everywhere. 
 
 But it is said that this concession to Ireland of an independent 
 Legislature will bind the two islands in closer union than ever. 
 It will remove the last cause of difference, and establish friend- 
 
50 
 
 GENERAL SYNOD OF THE CHURCH OF IRELAND. 
 
 ship, which community of interest will render perpetual. Those 
 who cherish such expectations ignore the capital fact in the 
 relations between the two countries — the deep-seated hatred of 
 England which is in the heart of the Irish race. That hatred, 
 indeed, cannot be quite overlooked. It is proclaimed in the 
 Irish Press, it is avowed in the Imperial Parliament, it is mani- 
 fested in the Irish- American plots for dynamite outrage. But it 
 is always supposed to be due to some present grievance, and it 
 is expected that when this is removed, the bitter alienation will 
 pass away. Repeated experience might have shown how 
 fallacious is the hope. The hatred of England which is 
 cherished by the Irish race has its roots in the history of the 
 past, and cannot be cured by any legislative charm. It is said, 
 indeed, that every nation in Europe might have bitter memories 
 of conquest and oppression, but that these are suffered to sleep 
 in early mediaeval history. True ; but the case of Ireland 
 differs. Her bloody memories are comparatively recent. She 
 bears in her bosom the recollection of a protracted agony only 
 lately ended. For centuries England was too much occupied 
 with Continental wars to prosecute with continuous energy the 
 incorporation of Ireland so as to form a great State, which 
 should be powerful and secure. And not till the reign of 
 Elizabeth was this great work undertaken in earnest. But then 
 it coincided with the Reformation. The struggle between Irish 
 and English became a struggle between Roman Catholic and 
 Protestant, and absorbed into itself all the bitterness of those 
 wars of religion which for more than a century rent Europe 
 asunder. It is unnecessary to recount the sad succession of 
 rebellion, confiscation, massacre, war, penal laws, reaching into 
 the very century in which we live. But it is very necessary to 
 remember that these all have generated in the Irish race a 
 hatred of England, which is transmitted from generation to 
 generation as a hereditary passion. The one remedy for this 
 is persistent continuance in patient justice. But if now, while 
 it is still active, it is to have free play in an Irish Parliament, it 
 can end in nothing but permanent alienation between the two 
 islands. 
 
 Think of the difference between the Irish and English in 
 tradition, habit, national character, and political sympathies, 
 and say can national welfare result from the establishment of 
 the two Legislatures side by side, on the undulations of political 
 circumstance, like two colliding ironclads, to waste each other 
 with mutual opposition and resistance continually renewed. Or 
 is it supposed that harmony can be established by granting to 
 Ireland restricted powers of separate legislation, the restrictions 
 to form a new grievance, which would be denounced by Irish 
 
THE RIGHT HON. R. R. WARREN. 
 
 51 
 
 orators as English tyranny, until at length they were swept 
 away? With restrictions or without them, any measure of 
 legislative separation could not fail to give scope and play to 
 national hatred, to divergent policy, to mutual jealousy, which 
 would embitter the relations of the two islands, and increase 
 their alienation from each other. 
 
 And what would be the effect of all this on that great Empire 
 which we have won by our bravery and our genius, and which 
 we hold in trust for the good of the world ? Would not division 
 at home paralyse our power at its source ? Would it not open 
 the door in Ireland for foreign intrigue, possibly for the entry of 
 hostile force ? While the bitter dissension between England and 
 Ireland would propagate itself throughout the Empire between 
 those who were respectively of English and of Irish origin, and 
 that sentiment of attachment to the mother country which pro- 
 mises to be such a source of strength, would be confused and 
 weakened when the mother country was herself divided. Such 
 division would proclaim to the world that we had lost organic 
 force and power of cohesion, and the nations would feel that 
 the great British Empire had begun to go to pieces. 
 
 For ourselves, the loyal minority of Irishmen, as we try to 
 forecast our future, we ask ourselves why is it that the Irish 
 masses and the Irish Boman Catholic clergy cannot be appeased 
 by apparently unlimited concessions ? Why is it that nothing 
 will satisfy them but an Irish Parliament ? And the only com^ 
 plete answer that we can find is, because they seek objects 
 which they know that none but an Irish Parliament would ever 
 grant — the spoliation, the humiliation, the suppression of those 
 whom it is hoped that England, after having beguiled them with 
 Acts of settlement, with solemn national compacts, with Parlia- 
 mentary titles to their property, and every specious form in 
 which national honour can be pledged, will in the end abandon 
 and betray. 
 
 If such be the course which English statesmen are prepared 
 to take, we prefer the hardship which will be our portion to the 
 dishonour which will be theirs. 
 
 The resolution was then put to the meeting and unanimously 
 adopted. 
 
 The Bight Hon. B. B. Warren. — The previous resolutions 
 have been moved by Bishops, and supported by landed proprietors, 
 and I, as a professional man, who has taken an active part in 
 the temporal affairs of the Church, have been requested to pro- 
 pose the next resolution. I trust that as long as I am able to 
 work, I shall be found at the post of duty in Ireland, working for 
 the Church. 
 
52 
 
 GENERAL SYNOD OF THE CHURCH OF IRELAND. 
 
 The resolution is this : — 
 
 “That, believing, for the reasons already stated, that the policy against 
 which we have protested would be injurious to the best interests — social, 
 moral, and religious — of our country, we consider ourselves further bound to 
 resist it as tending to impoverish, if not to expatriate, many of those on 
 whose support the maintenance of our Church, under God, depends, and 
 thereby to disable her in the efforts which she is making to supply the 
 spiritual needs of her people.” 
 
 The income of the Church in 1885 was about £420,000 — an 
 insufficient income to provide even a modest maintenance for an 
 educated and married clergy : any diminution must cause personal 
 distress and general weakness. How will the Home Eule scheme 
 affect this income? £151,000 represents the interest of mort- 
 gages on Irish land. Is this land to be directly confiscated, or 
 indirectly, by entrusting it to the guardianship of an Irish Parlia- 
 ment ? £186,000 represents the gifts of residents in Ireland — 
 
 some four-fifths of it the gifts of landholders. Are these land- 
 holders, residents in parishes in all the counties, and supporters 
 of their parish churches, to be impoverished, or actually expatri- 
 ated, or driven from their homes in country districts, where local 
 ties awaken and call into action sympathies for the Church ? 
 And what of the remainder of the Church’s income ? So far as 
 it is derived from the security of stocks or shares in Ireland, the 
 anticipation of Home Eule has shaken such property to its base. 
 Take the very first of Irish securities — Bank of Ireland Stock — 
 fallen in a year from £800 to £255 ! 
 
 The Prime Minister, as if inops consilii , has appealed to all 
 classes, whether concerned with land or industries or property 
 in general, for indications of their views on the great subjects 
 of land, social order, and Irish self-government. This great 
 representative assembly — representing a loyal Church, dependent 
 on land industries and property — this day emphatically indicates 
 its views, that security of landed property or of industrial liberty 
 cannot and will not co-exist with Irish self-government. And 
 what of social order, without which other things more precious 
 than property must perish ? Let me cite an authority, and 
 commend it with our approval to the enquirer — a Cabinet 
 Minister — a late Chief Secretary, with only too many opportuni- 
 ties of Irish experiences. He arrived just after the “ altercation ” 
 in the Park, and had to investigate too many unhappy deaths ! 
 Mr. Trevelyan says, as far as law and order and the peace 
 of the country are concerned, there is no half- way-house between 
 entire separation and Imperial control. Well, no Englishman 
 has yet been found so base or so foolish as to suggest entire 
 separation. 
 
 We, in this Synod, agree with Mr. Trevelyan, and indicate his 
 
MR. T. P. CAIRNES. 
 
 53 
 
 views as ours, that social order cannot and will not co-exist with 
 Irish self-government. 
 
 Let Irish self-government be granted, and one or other of two 
 alternatives must follow — civil war or separation ; and there are 
 statesmen in the Cabinet who know full well that the result of 
 separation must be the humiliation of the British Empire, and 
 her people, nay, all Europe, America, Asia, will see written upon 
 the wall, in characters that they can read without a prophet’s aid 
 — Ichabod. 
 
 The High Sheriff of County Louth (Mr. Thomas P. 
 Cairnes). — My Lord, I beg to second the resolution proposed 
 by Judge Warren. 
 
 It may probably be objected by some that in the course now 
 adopted, in making her voice heard in the present crisis, and 
 entering her solemn protest against the policy of separation with 
 which we are threatened, the Church of Ireland is departing from 
 the course she has hitherto consistently pursued, of keeping clear 
 of political questions, and is adopting that so openly followed by 
 the Church of Borne, of entering the arena of party politics, and 
 treating the sacred cause of religion as a subject for political 
 strife. Such an objection would come with singularly bad grace 
 from those who themselves notoriously adopt this course. But 
 we need not have recourse to such an ad Jnominem argument to 
 justify our conduct. The question with which we are dealing is 
 not one, in the ordinary sense of the word, “ political.” It is a 
 question as to the abrogation of a fundamental law — a change in 
 the very framework of the Constitution — a change which we 
 hold would be fraught with imminent peril, not only to our civil 
 but also to our religious liberties ; and this being so, it is our 
 undoubted right — nay, it is our bounden duty as Churchmen — 
 to make the voice of the Church heard, calmly and temperately, 
 but at the same time boldly and distinctly, in defence of those 
 liberties. In the previous resolutions several distinct and im- 
 portant grounds were stated, on which we base our objections to 
 the establishment of a separate Legislature in this country, and 
 on the evils we apprehend would flow from it ; and in the one 
 now under consideration further reasons are put forward on 
 which we ground our opposition to this proposal, namely, that it 
 is calculated to affect injuriously the best interests, moral, social, 
 and religious, of our native land, and to impoverish, if not ex- 
 patriate, those on whom the maintenance of our Church mainly 
 depends. If this be so, there can be no doubt we have strong 
 grounds for appealing against it to the patriotism and public 
 spirit of British statesmen. 
 
 Let us see how far the opinion we put forward as to the evil 
 
 E 
 
54 
 
 GENERAL SYNOD OF THE CHURCH OF IRELAND. 
 
 effects of such a measure can be justified. Widely differing, nay,, 
 absolutely antagonistic, opinions are held as to the effects of 
 Home Rule. While we, in common with all other Protestant 
 Churches in this country, as well as a large section of our Roman 
 Catholic fellow-countrymen, and that of the best educated and 
 most cultured class, regard it, as stated in the resolution, as being 
 calculated to injure the best interests of our country, on the 
 contrary, those who demand it represent it as the one panacea 
 for all the ills of Ireland. When once it is obtained, poverty 
 and discontent will disappear, and a golden age of peace, plenty, 
 and prosperity is, they assert, immediately to ensue ! Now, see 
 which of these very conflicting opinions will bear the test of 
 examination ; and I will make that examination by appealing to 
 two tests the fairness of which cannot be impugned ; namely, 
 the attitude and action of the statesman who proposes to intro- 
 duce the measure, and the character and conduct of those who 
 demand it. Now, what is Mr. Gladstone’s attitude in introducing 
 this measure, and how does he propose to bring it in ? Does he 
 introduce it on any intelligible grounds of equity or justice, as 
 the natural and necessary development of political principles 
 long since recognised and approved ? Or, does he not rather 
 bring it forward under the pressure of political necessity forced 
 upon him by the peculiar balance of political parties, and with a 
 view to remove the political deadlock, rather than from any 
 serious conviction that it would benefit this country ? Is it not 
 admitted by the most competent politicians that it is a measure 
 never before seriously entertained by any responsible statesman, 
 and only now suddenly sprung upon the political world within 
 the last few months ? To question the fitness of the people of 
 this country to be entrusted with complete legislative and execu- 
 tive powers is, of course, a political heresy of the deepest dye. 
 But let us judge of Mr. Gladstone’s opinion on this subject by 
 considering the accompaniments with which this measure of 
 Home Rule is to be introduced. It is, we are informed, so “ in- 
 extricably interwoven with the questions of the land and social 
 order that it is past the wit of man to disentangle them and 
 so this great panacea, this salutary and beneficial measure, is 
 not to be introduced alone, but accompanied by two other 
 measures — one for the purpose of securing landlords against 
 absolute and complete spoliation before they are driven out of 
 the country, and the other to afford some protection for such of 
 the loyal minority as may remain, against the tyranny of the 
 triumphant majority. Now, if Home Rule be the simple act of 
 justice it is represented, if its effects would be of that purely 
 salutary and beneficial character that are described, and if the 
 people of Ireland are so fully qualified to be intrusted with legis- 
 
MR. T. P. CAIRNES. 
 
 55 
 
 lative and executive power, whence is the necessity for the 
 introduction of these safeguards, the establishment of these 
 elaborate guarantees ? Does not all this indicate clearly, that 
 Mr. Gladstone at least has grave doubts as to the fitness of the 
 National party to be intrusted with power, and regards it at best 
 as a doubtful and dangerous experiment, that would expose us to 
 new political dangers calling for extraordinary measures of pre- 
 caution to guard against them ? 
 
 And now to glance for a moment at the light which the 
 character and conduct of those who demand Home Eule throw 
 upon its probable effects. What has been the conduct for the 
 last five years of the Nationalist party themselves ? Has it not 
 been characterized by such a violent and partisan spirit, such a 
 disregard for the principles of equity and justice, as to demon- 
 strate their unfitness to be intrusted with either legislative or 
 executive powers ? and is not this very unfitness, as exhibited in 
 the Imperial House of Commons, one of the most powerful in- 
 ducements to deal with the present question ? And can any 
 reasonable man doubt that if intrusted with such powers, they 
 would continue to exercise them in the same violent and partisan 
 spirit ? 
 
 And now, one word in conclusion as to the hope we may enter- 
 tain as to the success of our appeal. That appeal is to the public 
 opinion of Great Britain — to the honour and patriotism of British 
 statesmen ; and hampered though they be by the ties of party, 
 and pressed by political exigencies, still I cannot believe that the 
 appeal of the loyal Protestants of this country, of those who have 
 always shown an unswerving attachment to the British connec- 
 tion, will be made to such men in vain. Be that as it may. Let 
 the appeal be made boldly. Let the issue be put clearly and 
 distinctly, and the issue is this — Will they, in deference to the 
 clamour of a troublesome political party, to the pressure of 
 political exigencies, adopt a course alike impolitic and dishonour- 
 able, and sacrifice those who have been always true to the 
 interests of the Empire, and hand over the future destinies of 
 this country to an ignorant and misguided people ? or will they 
 break themselves free from the trammels of party, assert their 
 true principles, and refuse to give their sanction to any measure 
 which would disturb or impair that legislative Union which 
 affords the only real and adequate guarantee for the continuance 
 of our civil and religious liberties ? 
 
 The Archdeacon of Derry supported the resolution, which 
 was then passed unanimously. 
 
56 
 
 GENERAL SYNOD OF THE CHURCH OF IRELAND. 
 
 The Provost of Trinity College. — My Lord, the resolution 
 which I am about to propose is so obvious a corollary from that 
 which we have already done that it will be unnecessary to say a 
 word in support of it. This is the resolution : — 
 
 “That copies of the foregoing resolutions be transmitted by the Secretaries 
 of the Synod to Her Majesty the Queen, to his Excellency the Lord Lieu- 
 tenant of Ireland, to the Prime Minister, and to the Chief Secretary for 
 Ireland.” 
 
 Turning to the general question, I may say there are three 
 considerations that admonish me to be brief. First, the late 
 hour ; second, that every conceivable subject has been touched 
 upon ; and third — and it is a thing I am happy to bear witness 
 to — that on this occasion the Church of Ireland has spoken with 
 no uncertain sound. This is not the first time I have had the 
 honour of addressing this assembly, and I have generally to per- 
 suade, or try to persuade, some of the members who do not agree 
 with me. On the present occasion I have no such duty, and, 
 perhaps, as a speaker, I might say no such privilege. I feel sure 
 there is not one man in this crowded Hall who differs from his 
 brethren on this important occasion. What remains for me but 
 to gather up a few of the crumbs that have fallen from the tables, 
 or hands, or jaws of the orators who have preceded me, and try 
 to make something out of them ? One important question was 
 stated in the very beginning. It was said, “ It will be objected 
 to you that you are trenching on politics, which are no affair of 
 yours.” It reminds me very much of the story that was found 
 m scion tific or semi- scientific history, of a certain philosopher 
 who was on one occasion engaged in investigating a problem in 
 the quiet of his own study, when suddenly a maid- servant ran in 
 and exclaimed, “ Sir, the house is on fire.” “ Go to my wife, you 
 fool,” said the philosopher ; “do I ever concern myself with 
 household matters ? ” Well, I do not say our house is on fire, 
 but fire is very near, and if we do as the philosopher did on that 
 occasion, we shall be laughed at as we have laughed at the phi- 
 losopher. But worse than that. Surely we have to reckon with 
 the men who have chosen us to defend their interests, to watch 
 when danger is threatening the Church or the country, and to do 
 their best to avert the danger. Would they be satisfied if, when 
 danger was coming, we took no means to avert it ? Would they 
 be satisfied with the trite apophthegm that we have no concern 
 in politics ? The answer that would be given by our constituents 
 one and all, would be, “ You have betrayed your trust, and you 
 have been false to your duty.” 
 
 Perhaps I may be excused for inquiring, somewhat as a natural 
 philosopher might inquire, if we had Home Rule, what would be 
 
THE PROVOST OF TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN. 
 
 57 
 
 the result ? I am not now going to ask what are the motives of 
 those engaged in the promotion of the idea of Home Rule — 
 whether they may be good, bad, or indifferent, — except so far as 
 those people reveal their motives themselves. Suppose a man 
 put a red-hot poker into a barrel of gunpowder in our immediate 
 vicinity. We do not want to know what his motives were, or 
 whether he was a kind, or generous, or good individual. We 
 only want to know that, given a red-hot poker in contact with a 
 barrel of gunpowder, w T e should have an explosion. Now, in the 
 first place, what is Home Rule, as it is demanded, or as it is sup- 
 posed to settle the question ? What power is demanded for it ? 
 The power of legislating upon all Irish affairs. Well, what affairs 
 are there that concern this country that would not be considered 
 Irish affairs ? The power of taxation is a thing that must go to 
 an Irish Parliament. Even if we had a right, and were bound, 
 to contribute a certain amount to Imperial taxation, the incidence 
 of taxation must go to an Irish Parliament if it was here. That 
 is to say, the Irish Parliament might at any moment repeal the 
 duty on whiskey, and put the duty on land instead. The inci- 
 dence of taxation is, therefore, one power that must be given to 
 an Irish Parliament. Another is the command of the police, 
 and the third is the making of laws which concern the property 
 of the country — the making of laws like the Land Act of 1881. 
 
 If they give to Ireland a separate Parliament, they cannot 
 deny it powers like these. In short, they should give it as large 
 powers in Ireland as the British Parliament possesses in England. 
 For all the affairs that concerned Ireland it would be omnipotent. 
 Well, how would it use that power ? It is all very well to talk 
 of “ generous confidence ” and “ trust your fellow-countrymen,” 
 and all that kind of thing ; but with all respect, still recurring 
 to the spirit of philosophy, I prefer to judge by what they have 
 done. Who are the people that we have to trust ? Who are the 
 people that would be the constituents of this new Parliament ? 
 They would be the peasantry and the tenant farmers of Ireland. 
 What use have they made of the powers they have already ? 
 What use does the National League make of its power, which is 
 one of the greatest powers that have ever been in this country ? 
 Do they use it in any way consistent with civil liberty ? No, 
 they do not ; and the practice of boycotting, which, as we know, 
 is rife through the country, is directed not at all so much for 
 political advantage as for the curtailment of civil liberty. I will 
 mention one case of the boycotting of schools, out of many that 
 come under my notice as a Commissioner of National Education. 
 A school was boycotted, and the children were removed — even 
 though the master of the school was a Roman Catholic, and a 
 most excellent and exemplary man — for no other fault but that 
 
 E 2 
 
58 
 
 GENERAL SYNOD OF THE CHURCH OF IRELAND. 
 
 the master’s father and mother were the caretakers of a hunt 
 club house. In another case, that of a girls’ school, it was boy- 
 cotted because the husband of the mistress of the school voted 
 against the National candidate for the Poor-law guardianship, 
 and the children were all taken away. One of the most common 
 things is that when a man who has children at a school makes 
 himself unpopular, the schoolmaster is warned to send that man’s 
 children away, or else all the children will be withdrawn. That 
 is quite a common thing. Now, that is the way in which the 
 constituents in the new Parliament would treat the principle of 
 civil liberty. 
 
 We are told about guarantees ; but who is to give them ? Let 
 us suppose they are given by the heads of the Irish Parliament, 
 commencing with Mr. Parnell, and I have no objection to sup- 
 pose the men perfectly honest in giving those guarantees. But 
 how could they give them? Suppose that, when they came back, 
 they tried to persuade the Irish Parliament to keep those guaran- 
 tees, the House might reply, “ We never promised them, and you 
 must stand aside, and we will do what we like.” It is the 
 experience of history that guarantees of that kind are worth 
 nothing, because there is no man who could give them in such a 
 way as to bind others. Some people say that attack is always 
 stronger than defence — that Home Eule is inevitable, and that 
 we had better make the best of the bargain. But that is like a 
 rhetorical artifice we have heard over and over again. When a 
 man cannot prove a thing, he says — “ It is perfectly certain — 
 don’t ask me to argue the question ; but it cannot be doubted 
 for a moment.” And just in the same way with Home Eule ; the 
 man who cannot prove it says it is pretty certain that the thing 
 must come. 
 
 But there is a story in Ireland’s history that is not unknown 
 to my friend the Bishop of Derry. To the people there that 
 doctrine was preached. They, too, were told — the obscure 
 youths of that city were told — “It is useless to make a defence — 
 make the best bargain you can ; the capture of your city is inevit- 
 able, and little else remains for you but to try to do the best for 
 yourselves.” The citizens and the city scorned that advice, and 
 the name of Derry has proved for all history and for all time 
 that all is not lost that is in danger, and that there was once a 
 day when the defence proved too strong for the attack. There 
 never was a time when darkness shrouded that which is to come 
 more closely from our eyes than now. God alone has the disposi- 
 tion of that which is to happen. It remains but for us to do our 
 duty — to do it, I will say, as Irishmen — to doit as citizens of this 
 great Empire — to do it having regard to the men who sent us 
 here, and who are now watching anxiously and hopefully, and to- 
 morrow joyfully for our action. 
 
MR. JAMES SPAIGHT ; LORD BELMORE. 
 
 59 
 
 Mr. James Spaight. — Having just received your Grace’s re- 
 quest to second this resolution, I consent willingly, as I consider 
 it the duty of everyone in the present crisis to do all that in him 
 lies to promote the objects of this meeting. I came here to 
 listen, not to speak, and never have I experienced more intense 
 pleasure and delight than in listening to the whole debate, in- 
 cluding the magnificent address of the Lord Bishop of Derry, 
 and the unanswerable logic of Dr. Salmon’s speech, so full of 
 common sense and genuine Irish humour. Our chief purpose is 
 not so much to reach the ear of the Lord Lieutenant and Chief 
 Secretary, as to teach the public opinion of Great Britain. I do 
 not believe the great heart of England can remain unmoved on 
 hearing the eloquent and weighty words spoken in the Synod 
 this day, where every division has been removed, and where all 
 sections, Whig and Tory, Conservative and Liberal, have been 
 fused by the heat of this burning question into one compact and 
 solid mass of loyalty. 
 
 I was delighted to hear from the Bishop of Down that Ulster 
 Protestants will not desert their brethren in the south. That 
 assurance will give hope and comfort to many humble Protestants 
 in the south and west, whose position, deserted by their friends, 
 and surrounded by enemies, would otherwise be sad indeed ! It 
 will sustain them to know that if the worst comes to the worst, 
 they will, among Ulster Protestants, find a refuge and a home. 
 
 The Earl of Belmore. — In seconding this resolution, my Lord, 
 I would move as a rider — 
 
 u And that the Standing Committee be instructed to embody the resolu- 
 tions in Petitions from the General Synod, to be presented to both Houses of 
 Parliament.” 
 
 After all, it is not what Mr. Gladstone may wish or decide, but 
 what the Houses of Parliament may decide, that will settle the 
 question of Home Rule. I believe I have heard some one say that 
 the granting of Home Rule is inevitable ; but after a Parliamentary 
 experience of nearly thirty years, I have come to a different con- 
 clusion. To my mind such a contingency is extremely improbable, 
 and I think things point the other way. With reference to the 
 question of land purchase, I have always been in favour of such a 
 scheme ; but I think the British taxpayer has become thoroughly 
 alarmed at the magnitude of what is supposed to be the present 
 proposal. It will not be possible, however, I think, to carry 
 Home Rule in any case, and certainly not without being accom- 
 panied by some such measure as Mr. Gladstone may have in 
 view, dealing perhaps only with the encumbered or more heavily 
 taxed estates. 
 
 Judge Darley also supported the resolution, which was then 
 unanimously passed, with the addition proposed by Lord Belmore. 
 
60 
 
 GENERAL SYNOD OF THE CHURCH OF IRELAND. 
 
 The Lord Bishop of Kilmore. — My Lord Archbishop, I rise to 
 propose a resolution which, though not on the paper, will, I feel 
 sure, meet with the full approval of this Synod. It is as 
 follows : — 
 
 “ That the proceedings of this day, including the Address of His Grace 
 the President, the resolutions, and the speeches reported in full, be printed in 
 pamphlet form, and circulated in the United Kingdom as widely as to thG 
 Standing Committee of the General Synod may seem advisable, and that the 
 Standing Committee be instructed to embody the resolutions in petitions 
 from the General Synod to be presented to both Houses of Parliament. 5 ’ 
 
 We must all feel thankful for the success of this day’s pro- 
 ceedings. The Prime Minister asked for the opinions of all 
 classes with regard to those Irish questions which are agitating 
 the public mind at present. We send our reply in the resolutions 
 unanimously passed this day, and in the able speeches delivered in 
 support of them. 
 
 The Church of Ireland, represented so fully in Synod, has 
 spoken with no uncertain sound as regards the proposed ruinous 
 policy of Home Buie. It is a matter of the greatest importance that 
 the able speeches to which we have listened this day should be 
 preserved in a permanent form and circulated as widely as possible 
 through England and Scotland, where the public mind requires 
 so much enlightenment on the subject. 
 
 The letter which I hold in my hand is from a distinguished 
 minister of the Presbyterian Church, and shows how fully alive 
 the members of that Church are as to the great importance of 
 widely circulating their opinions on the subject of Home Buie. 
 This letter states that the Presbyterian body in Ulster have 
 transmitted copies of the resolutions passed by them against 
 Home Buie, or separation, to every minister of their communion 
 in Scotland and England, with a request that he may take 
 occasion to bring the subject before liis congregation. I am 
 strongly of opinion that a similar course ought to be adopted by 
 this Synod with regard to the bishops and clergy of the Church 
 of England, and of the Episcopal Church in Scotland. 
 
 Without further trespassing on the time of this Synod, I beg 
 to propose the resolution. 
 
 The Lord Bishop of Killaloe. — In deference to your Grace’s 
 wish just conveyed to me, that each bishop present should 
 so far identify himself with the work to-day as to move or 
 second some resolution, I rise to support that which has been 
 moved by the Bishop of Kilmore. It would require an inventive 
 genius, greater than I could pretend to, to find now any new 
 phase of the subject that has engaged our attention, to pre- 
 
THE LORD BISHOP OF KILLALOE. 
 
 61 
 
 sent to this Synod ; and it would be an unwarrantable act, at so 
 late an hour and at this stage of our proceedings, to attempt 
 anything of a speech. I for one felt deeply thankful that the 
 General Synod of the Church of Ireland was thus specially sum- 
 moned, and it is most gratifying and encouraging to see one of, 
 I think, the largest assemblages we have ever had, at least in 
 these later days. One thing I would wish to say, that we 
 ought not to adopt a desponding tone, nor look upon our sur- 
 rounding circumstances, dark and ominous as they are, with 
 anything of a despairing view. Such a spirit or such an attitude 
 is most injurious, and would go far to paralyse the efforts that 
 each and all of us should put forth to the utmost of our power. 
 Nor have we, I maintain, any reason for despondency. We have 
 been brought through troubles and difficulties ere now. I may 
 be over-sanguine ; yet some way I think that it is at least pos- 
 sible — even more, I think probable — that Mr. Gladstone will not 
 be able to carry out the purposes it is alleged he has in view. 
 The Church of Ireland has to-day, in this her great represent- 
 ative assembly, spoken in no hesitating or uncertain tone ; and, 
 while we may be thankful for this, let us still remember that 
 there is above and over all the Church of Ireland’s glorious 
 Head, who rules and orders the concerns of His people here 
 according to the counsel of His own will. If the worst should 
 happen, if the darkest disaster that we could apprehend should 
 befall us, it will be, not because England’s Sovereign assented — 
 not because England’s Prime Minister, her statesmen, or 
 Houses of Parliament carried through the destructive measures, 
 but because He that is “ higher than the highest ” permitted it in 
 the furtherance of His own omnipotent purposes — purposes that, 
 though often dark and perplexing to us, are always wise and 
 always beneficent. Still, as I have said, we ought not to antici- 
 pate those darker and more trying issues ; fully admitting that 
 there is much naturally calculated to disturb and alarm, we 
 need to bear in mind that one method of His acting who con- 
 trols all connected with us is to let things come often to the 
 extremest point of peril, .and then, by one touch, to bring, like 
 lightning from the depth of the thunder- cloud, the unexpected 
 help and change, giving force to the old familiar proverbs — 
 “ When things come to the worst, they’ll mend,” or, “ Man’s 
 extremity is God’s opportunity.” And not this alone, but many 
 a record, alike in history sacred and secular, goes to show that He 
 allows men to carry out their own machinations while He seems to 
 stand aloof — to accomplish their own ends with apparently un- 
 hindered success — and then He steps in, not only frustrating the 
 dark designs, but using their very efforts for Himself — taking up 
 the threads of their workmanship, and weaving all into the great 
 
62 
 
 GENERAL SYNOD OF THE CHURCH OF IRELAND. 
 
 final purpose that He from the outset had in view, “making the 
 wrath of man to praise Him, while the remainder of wrath He 
 restrains.” We may, then, calmly trust Him for our future, 
 while with unabated energy we use all the appliances within our 
 reach to ward off, if it may be, the evil that we dread : and one 
 result, I trust, will follow from all that has taken place here to- 
 day — the allaying of anxiety and apprehension, and the lookin 
 with a bright and hopeful spirit upon the unknown and clouded 
 prospect that just now confronts our Church and nation. 
 
 The resolution was passed. 
 
 The Benediction was pronounced, and the Synod adjourned. 
 
 Charles W, Gibbs, Printer to the General Synod, 18 Wicklow-street, Dublin. 
 

 
'