1150. Mr. Hume concluded his speech on that occasion, by moving two distinct resolutions :

"1st, That the property now in the possession of the established church in Ireland is public property, under the controul of the legislature, and applicable to such purposes as in its wisdom it may deem beneficial to the best interests of religion and of the community at large, due regard being had to the rights of every person in the actual enjoyment of any part of that property."

"

And 2ndly, That this house will, early in the next session of parliament, appoint a Select Committee for the purpose of considering the present state of the Irish church, and the various charges to which ecclesiastical property is liable."

Mr. Canning began by saying, that "whatever “fault he might be disposed to find, either with "the motion or the speech of the Hon. Gentleman, "at least he could not impute to him any conceal"ment of his views, or any design to keep out of

66

66

sight the fullest explanation of his motives. In

justice to the Hon. Gentleman he must say that he had fully stated his object. But before he pro“ceeded to apply himself to any part of his speech, " he must request of the clerk to read the 5th article "of the Act of Union."

After the article already quoted had been read, he proceeded to state that it was "an advantage, "that, in coming to the consideration of the question

C

66

the house were placed in no circumstances of uncertainty. The sense of the legislature on the sub"ject was not to be gathered from statutes, the con"struction of which might be doubtful, but they had "a clear, distinct authority, only twenty-five years old, to compare with the Hon. Member's resolu"tion, and to help them in coming to a decision, as " to whether it was possible to pass that resolution, "consistently with that statute. He thought he should have the admission of the Hon. Member himself, that the statute to which he had referred "stood in his way. The Hon. Member had, to be

66

66

66

sure, expressed his disapprobation of the settle"ment made at the Union; but with respect to the "state of the law, there could be no dispute. The

66

compact which had been made at the Union might "be broken; but until that was done, it became "parliament to act with good faith on their part. "Parliament could not, without a violation, which "would lead to the apprehension of violations of all "kinds, concur in the resolution of the Hon. Mem"ber, which went to put out of the purview of the "settlement made at the Union the whole of the property of the church of Ireland, and to declare that it was a thing with which parliament had a right to deal as it thought fit. The difficulty of "the Hon. Mover's case was, that it went directly against all that hitherto had been considered as ." established. The church property of Ireland might

66

66

"be compared to a corporate property, which had "been revised and conferred by act of parliament, "but the Hon. Mover seemed to think that he had

66

66

a right to go back to a period antecedent to the "establishment of a right to the property on the part of the church, and when that property re"mained to be distributed among mankind, for the "benefit of particular classes. If the house should

agree to the resolution, there was nothing to pre"vent them from seizing upon the property of corporations. Then, again, why was the house to stop with the tithes of the church? Why not, also, possess themselves of the lay tithes? In short, the "proposition of the Hon. Member was so mon"strous, so likely to lead to the most alarming con

66

sequences, that it was, he was sure, quite impossi"ble that the House could, for a moment, hesitate ઈંદ "as to the course they should pursue regarding it. "The Honourable Member had, in the course of his speech, remarked, that the session had been "wasted in fruitless attempts to carry the Catholic question. Now, the greatest enemy of that ques"tion could not devise a surer means of procuring "its defeat than by causing to be inserted on the "journals of the House a resolution contemplating "the spoliation of the Protestant Church property next session. It was, he was convinced, the fear of such a proceeding which originated much of "the opposition to the Catholic claims. He was

66

66

66

166

"therefore, rather pleased that the Honourable Gentleman had afforded the House an opportunity of showing how they would meet any such proposition. He was confident that the vote to "which they were about to come would tranquil"lize any fears which might be entertained on the "subject." The Right Honourable Gentleman concluded by "characterizing the motion as one of the "most barefaced propositions of injustice that had "ever been submitted to parliament. His firm "belief was, that to such a resolution the Honour"able Member would find few supporters in that House, and still fewer in the country."

66

It will be observed that the fifth Article of the Act of Union pledges the preservation of the United Church of England and Ireland. It is obvious that the reasoning of Mr. Canning is equally applicable to the Act of Union with Scotland. The preservation of the Protestant Episcopal Church, both in England and Ireland, and of the Presbyterian Church in Scotland, are fundamental conditions of that Union; and consequently, upon the principle of Mr. Canning's argument, a violation" of that

66

compact" would be equally involved in any compulsory appropriation of the temporalities of those Churches to other purposes than those to which they were thereby pledged.

The arguments that were opposed to the observations of Mr. Canning will appear, on examina

tion, to be of the following nature:-First, That the fifth Article of the Act of Union, even if admitted to convey a meaning in contradiction to the motion of Mr. Hume, might be altered or annulled; and that, as the legislature had the power to effect a modification of private property, if necessary to the public welfare, it must of necessity have equal power with regard to the property of the Church. With respect, however, to the latter argument, I never heard of a modification of private property, which was not founded on the doctrine of an equivalent; and no person can be bigoted enough to contend that, under the circumstances of a "bonâ fide" equivalent, Church property would not be really preserved. Every thing would turn on the adequacy of the equivalent.

Secondly, it was contended that there was no analogy between private and Church property. The private individual had a power of disposing of his property: the incumbent, or individual member of the Church in a corporate sense, had no power to dispose of his benefice, but it must go to his successor. Under the circumstances of a violation of private property, the immediate descendants of the party only were injured :-under the contingency of an appropriation of Church property to other purposes, no specific party would be injured; the only effect would be, that some person who otherwise would have been a clergy