HC Deb 06 April 1835 vol 27 cc837-61

Lord J. Russell moved the Order of the Day for the House again to resolve itself into a Committee upon his Resolution regarding e Established Church of Ireland.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

It is my intention to adhere strictly to the engagement I entered into with the Noble Lord, by throwing no impediment in the way of proceeding with this debate; but, at the same time, it is my duty to bring before the House our position with respect to the Navy Estimates and the Mutiny Bill. Instead of making any speech about the Navy Estimates, I will merely read a part of a letter addressed this day to the Board of Admiralty by Mr. Briggs, who holds a situation connected with that department:—"The day of payment of wages (says this gentleman) is Friday next, when they become due, for which no sup- plies have yet been voted." Thus the House would see that the matter was extremely pressing; and, with respect to other votes of equal importance, the Admiralty has been already put to difficulty. Then, with respect to the Mutiny Bill, I presume that the House contemplates a recess, and we are now at the 6th of April. It will be very inconvenient if the Bill does not pass before the 15th of April; but I only make this statement to shew, that it is necessary to proceed with these measures to-night. I hope, therefore, that the House will feel no objection to concede such a sum for the Navy Estimates as is absolutely necessary, and to advance the progress of the Mutiny Bill.

Lord John Russell

As far as I am concerned, I can only say that I shall not resist the course which the Right Hon. Baronet proposes to follow with respect to the Navy Estimates and the Mutiny Bill. I, however, beg to be understood to pledge myself no farther. Before the House resolve itself into the Committee on the Irish Church, it may be expedient for me to state the course I mean, with the concurrence of the House, to pursue. I did not wish, on Friday last, to be led into any premature declaration, which had not been duly considered. After what was said by the Right Hon. Baronet on Thursday night—after the vote then adopted by so considerable a majority—a majority, including those who paired off, of the whole House of Commons—I will not enter into the question of the manner in which we may hereafter be met; but merely say, that after mature reflection, the course I propose to take will be this:—Supposing the House should agree to-night, in Committee, to the resolution I have proposed, I shall suggest that it be reported to-morrow; if the House should further agree to that report I shall follow it up by a resolution, of which I cannot now give regular notice, but which I will take the liberty of reading:—"That it is the opinion of this House that no measure upon the subject of tithes in Ireland can lead to a final and satisfactory adjustment which does not embody the principle conveyed in the foregoing resolution." If at the conclusion of the debate it shall appear that this resolution is not satisfactory to a majority of the House, I shall then proceed, as I before gave notice that I should proceed, by moving, on the succeeding day, an address to the Crown, I shall not, however, move any address to the Crown until I have moved and failed in the resolution I have just read.

The House then went into a Committee.

Mr. Borthwick

said he would not follow the noble Lord who had moved the resolution through all the misty steps which he had taken, from the history of the first Edward through the reign of Elizabeth, down to the commencement of the present century, because, whatever grievances might in those years have been inflicted upon Ireland, and however favourable the subject was for declamation, he did not feel that any legitimate inference could be drawn from any one of those circumstances to the argument then before the House. The noble Lord had said in his speech that he hoped the time had arrived when the House would legislate in a better spirit than it had done hitherto. No longer ought they to give to the repeatedly enforced complaints of a few what belonged as a right to the people on abstract principles of legislation. If the demands made by the Roman Catholics of Ireland were just, concession ought to be made on the grounds of right and justice, and not on the ground of a compact with the preceding government. Much talk there had been of the Serbonian bog in which the noble Lord opposite had so devotedly plunged; and Burke had been quoted to show that he considered the property of the Church at the disposal of the State. When hon. Gentlemen quoted he would wish them for the future to do it more correctly. The following was the passage from the "Reflections on the Revolution in France," from which it was attempted to establish the principle of the noble Lord:—"From the united consideration of religion and constitutional policy, from their opinion of a duty to make a sure provision for the consolation of the feeble and the instruction of the ignorant, they have incorporated and identified the estate of the Church with the mass of private property, of which the State is not proprietor, either for use or dominion, but the guardian only and the regulator." And this property, which was here laid down to be not for use or dominion, but of which the State was only the guardian and the regulator, it was now argued might be applied to the purposes of the State. A quotation made from Blackstone had been equally infelicitous. Quoting from that high authority, it had been said the Church was the child of the law, and, being the child of the law, it was argued that the law might do that which seemed to the law good. A most unnatural and strange conclusion he considered this to be. Thus, because a child owed to a father the privilege of existence, on these grounds he might despoil him of his property and deprive him of his life. The noble Member for Northumberland had said that, there were many things which might be taught equally well by Protestants to Catholics, and by Catholics to Protestants; but he was of opinion that education must always proceed in connexion with religion. He entertained feelings of the greatest charity toward the Catholic Church, but he would not trust even the wisest of its Clergy to educate Protestant children. The hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets had said the Protestant Church caused most of the misery in Ireland. He gave the hon. and learned Member full credit for the assertion that accompanied that declaration—that he was a sound Protestant, and that he believed it was the purest and most efficient form for national instruction that could be devised. But his argument was, that the Roman Catholics formed the majority, and the Protestants the minority; and therefore it could not but follow that the majority, contributing to support a religion in which they did not believe, were contracting prejudices against that religion. Other hon. Members had asserted that the cause of the animosity which existed between the Protestants and Roman Catholics was because the latter associated with the Protestant Establishment those acts of tyranny and those scenes of bloodshed on which hon. Members had been so needlessly eloquent. He repeated needlessly, because it inferred that the hon. Members on his (Mr. Borthwick's) side of the House were less desirous of applying remedies to these abuses than those on the other side. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin had asked the House to give the people of Ireland appropriation in the name of justice; there might be no surplus, but give them the name. He would not give the people of Ireland an empty abstraction when they sought for bread, or an apple of discord when they asked for peace. The system proposed to be adopted was monstrous, however they might disguise it by calling it a general form of education on the principles of Christianity. It was a scheme of the Utilitarians, and some new term would doubtless be found in their vocabulary significant enough to describe it. But the whole of the argument was based on the presumption that there would be a surplus, and, if there were, that it should be given to support the moral and religious education of the people of Ireland. And the patriots of Ireland wished this most notable piece of legislature, that they might use it as a wedge. And for what purpose was this wedge to be used? Why for unseating the present Ministers, for whom they had little liking, because they perceived that the people of Great Britain had for them a great liking. The Question was one both of measures and men—whether the measures proposed by his Majesty's Ministers were for the good of the country, and whether they were men disposed and able to carry them into effect? Were he disposed to enter on the subject he was prepared to prove that the country had very good reason to be very well satisfied with the present prospect of affairs. The country did not want words but actions; the term Reform was nothing to it, but the thing Reform was; the phrase good government was nothing, but thing good government was something—that which the country had a right to look for. He could, if he were to go at large into the subject, show that the measure proposed within the last four years, under the name of Reform, was not at all equal to those brought in by his Majesty's present Government. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin had said, in his speech on a former night, that there never had been an adulterous connexion between the Church of Rome and the State. He would venture to ask the hon. and learned gentleman was not a connexion between the Church and State the very essence of the Romish faith? Was not her Pontiff a Sovereign, and were not her Bishops Princes? He wondered much how any hon. Member could attempt to repudiate the connexion. The union between Church and State was, in his opinion, essential to the integrity of both, but especially the latter. They might, he was aware, be distinct, but in this country the history of the period anterior to 1688 would have to be repeated. England had not forgotten what she had suffered by concession to liberality—aliberality which once encouraged never ceased in its march until it stopped at Whitehall to witness the death of Charles the First. At that fatal time and on that melancholy occasion there was not wanting one of that infamous order of the priesthood who lifted up his voice in mock imitation of the sacred welcome given to the Saviour on the cross when the blood of the martyr King was shed on the scaffold. If he was told that the course of liberality was not that which led to the murder of the King, he would ask those who told him so to go over with him the history of the rebellion. There they would find an exact parallel between the present and those disastrous times. There, they would find men acting in the same manner, only bolder and more openly—men who did not substitute one shadowy changing resolution for another night after night—men who had no cowardly shrinking from their professed principles—no crouching under false colours to attain their object. If there were any difference between the two periods to be found it was in favour of the earlier, for there were individuals among the actors in that epoch who were not only of a bold heroism, but of a dazzling talent, men whose private history did honour to human nature. That there should be no union between Church and State, between religion and politics, were plausible words with but little real meaning as the history of the period just referred to sufficed to prove. They were words calculated to catch the "general" ear, but a single sentence of truth would dispel the delusion. Was there aught in straight-forward politics which rendered their union with religion incompatible, or should religion be ashamed to look politics in the face? In his opinion, when religion formed no part of politics it might be looked for in vain in the land. The noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, and the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Cumberland, had exhausted all that could be said on the question in reference to religion—all that had been said besides was but a protraction of the debate and a waste of time. The Question before the House was twofold. First, that the resolution of the noble Lord contained a great benefit for Ireland; and, secondly, that it was intended to drive Ministers from their places. What had been hitherto held up before the eyes of his Majesty's Ministers was an unsubstantial, shadowy threat, assuming various forms as the exigencies of the case required, until the right hon. Baronet, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had compelled the opponents of his Government to explain that it meant at last an address to his Majesty. An address to carry what? He wished the noble Lord, the Member for Devonshire, were in the House to explain. Was it the object of the address to tell his Majesty that his exercise of his undoubted prerogative in selecting the Ministers of the Crown was not justifiable? or was it to be, like the message of Jack Cade to another English potentate:—"We are content you should reign so long as you give us an unconstitutional power over the exercise of your prerogative?" In a few days the country would make them hear from all parts its indignation at their course of proceeding—which was absurd, and unworthy of the wisdom of that House and the dignity of the British people. The Government were not to be allowed to carry the Irish Tithe Bill unless they asserted the great principle of appropriation. If the principle were a great one why did the Opposition not assert it before they introduced the Irish Tithe Bill of last session? If it were a principle it could not fluctuate. Why then, in the name of justice, if it were of such importance, did they delay its assertion until the present time? Why, if it were not for the purposes of faction. He would define faction. Faction was a union of persons for the purpose of carrying a measure or measures which had party and not patriotism for their objects. Why did the opposite faction—he used the words advisedly, in a political sense solely, and without intention of retracting them—why did the opposite faction wait for the present time to assert a principle which they termed a great principle, and let pass the time and opportunity when they had the power, if they had the will, of effectually doing so? One of the greatest objections which could arise to the measure of the noble Lord, the Member for Devonshire was, that it would be a fertile means of introducing a spirit of proselytism into Ireland. The moral good derivable at present from the efforts of both Churches, Catholic and Protestant, would be thus neutralised, if not totally destroyed. It would be an apple of discord between the people of both persuasions. The hon. Member concluded by opposing the motion before the Committee as factious, and not calculated to answer the object which it pretended to have in view.

Mr. John Maxwell

said, that in rising to address a few words to the House, he begged to state that the reasons which had led him to withhold his vote were his vote last session against the motion of the hon. Member for St. Alban's and for a Commission of Inquiry, and the subject being one upon which he could not pretend to state the sentiments of his constituents. He looked also to the unfortunate clergy, whose misfortunes might be aggravated by the premature assertion of a principle—the union of appropriation to tithe commutation—the great object for which all classes of the community were most anxious, and which they would lament the delay and loss of for any principle whatever He regretted that this Question had been made a party one extremely. He did think all classes of religious persons might have been brought to unite in some measure which would bring this tithe property to some useful assistance in Christianizing a population whose acts were too often in violation of every sentiment and moral practice emanating from that faith. If they could not make them Protestants, let them render them Christians. Christianity was the end for which this trust fund was intended. If they could not get them to adopt it in its reformed and purest forms, let them at least give them the means of having some faith and some religious practice flowing from it, more creditable to the state and the Irish—that the vital unchristianity which now disfigured their faith—(that form of faith which disgusted the people, and the poorest and most in need of state provision, and rendered it useless to them), might be changed. Let it be changed, not by party violence, but by absence of party spirit and presence of feeling for Ireland, and anxiety for promoting piety and knowledge in the form and by the guidance of Christian doctrines. He agreed that the terms and object of the noble Lord who had brought forward this proposition made a tolerably good resolution; at the same time Christianity was unnoticed in it, and however they might differ as to exclusive Protestantism, they all agreed, he hoped, in the necessity of adhering to the Christian employment of a Christian trust fund, and he was sure the addition of that word would be likely to give it more success, the omission of it less, if not little prospect of successful legislation in the united Parliament.

Mr. Baring Wall

was grateful as there were no surplus funds, that it was not necessary to raise a religious cry in Ireland; neither was the House called on to pander to the worst feelings in that country, and it was easy, therefore, to get rid of the difficulty, and leave the question of surplus to posterity. He could not but observe that in all Irish debates, from whatever side of the House they originated, it seemed invariably to be forgotten that any other party existed in the country save themselves. He much regretted that the moderate party was so little represented in this House, because if he felt satisfied that the civilization of Ireland, which had hitherto been so much impeded, would completely flourish under the influence of moderate counsels, for this party so little represented the House was called upon to act, and he felt satisfied, though he was no advocate for the members of the sacred profession mixing themselves up in the common politics of the country, that if some of the Irish Protestant clergy could be heard at the bar, or from seats in that House, they would well be able to maintain those rights and claims which the noble Lord's resolution went to infringe. With as much moderation as talent, they would secure to themselves numerous friends and supporters. He asked the House to pause, and to consider whether or not this resolution would lead to a final and satisfactory settlement of the Question. In his judgment, it would be far from leading to any such result. The only two ways by which a satisfactory settlement could be arrived at was, either by recognizing the Protestant Church, and connecting the Roman Catholic and Presbyterian Churches with the State, or by allowing the religion of the majority to have sway. Although he did not wish now to pledge himself to any measure not at present before the House, he would not hesitate fearlessly to say, that the matter could only be set at rest, and peace and tranquillity in Ireland established on a permanent footing, by connecting with the State the Catholic and Presbyterian Clergy of Ireland; at the same time he could not for a moment acquiesce in any proposition which should have the effect of diminishing the efficacy and efficiency of the Protestant Establishment. That Establishment had been charged as a proselytizing Church; he denied that such was the fact, and to it, therefore, on this occasion he should give his support. He objected to this motion both as regarded the time and the spirit in which it was brought forward, and further he objected on the ground of the want of sufficient information. He contended that it was not a fitting time to entertain and discuss so important a question when so much of party feeling prevailed. He, however, trusted that the right hon. Baronet below him (Sir Robert Peel) would turn his attention to the important consideration of some provision by the State for the Irish Roman Catholic Clergy, and to the relations in which the Protestants and Catholics of that country stood, for he was satisfied that peace and tranquillity would never be secured in Ireland until some provision in this respect was made.

Mr. Lucas

as the representative of a county in Ireland which was peculiarly Protestant, hoped he might be permitted to offer one or two observations. In his opinion the surplus revenues of the Protestant Church, if any, should be first applied to strictly Protestant purposes, such as the repairs of Churches and the building of glebe-houses, and, next, to the education of the Protestant population. If, after this, a further surplus should remain, instead of a general indiscriminate system of education, the members of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland should be considered, and the education of that class of the Irish community should be provided for, instead of the funds being applied to Roman Catholic purposes, even those of education. The remaining surplus ought then to be devoted to the repayment of the 1,000,000l. loan so liberally advanced by the British Legislature to the suffering Clergy of Ireland. He did net consider that the cause of morality and tranquillity would be served by keeping any class of the community in ignorance; but he contended, if any provision was to be made for the education of Roman Catholics, it ought to be provided by the State, or even by a tax on the land, but not. certainly out of the revenues of the Protestant Church. In saying thus much he was only speaking the sentiments of a numerous portion of the county he had the honour to represent.

Mr. Henry Lytton Bulwer

commenced by alluding to the observations of the hon. Member for the county of Lanark (Mr. John Maxwell), in reference to the fact, that a Commission of Inquiry having been issued, the returns from which might soon be expected to be laid on the Table of the House, it would be unfitting to come to a decision on this Question until that information was afforded, This objection had already been answered the other night by the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, who had said, that, even supposing the returns had been made showing a large surplus, yet as he did not suppose it was contemplated to do away with the interests of the existing incumbents, and as, therefore, such surplus could not be touched for at least thirty years, it signified nothing waiting for returns to deal with the principle of the proposition. Now, he believed every man was agreed that, ever since this country had a footing in Ireland, that country had been governed by tampering with the parties into which its population was divided. In short, there had been no difference in the principle of governing the majority by the minority. The first step towards equalization of rights was the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. That measure extended only to civil rights, and complete equality could in no way be established except by the adoption of such a Resolution as that which had been proposed by the noble Lord, the Member for Devonshire,—a Resolution which declared that, after providing for all the wants of the Protestant Established Church, the remaining revenues should be appropriated to the purposes of general education. He supported this proposition because he conceived it to be a fitting appendix to the Bill of Catholic Emancipation, and to complete an equality of religious rights as the last named measure had perfected the establishment of equality of civil rights. He would not, however, as a sincere Protestant, diminish, in the least degree, the strength of the Protestant religion in Ireland. It had been stated that the Establishment was not a Proselytizing Church. If so, he would inquire upon what ground the continuance to it of greater wealth than was sufficient for its wants could be justified? He was convinced that the country would not believe the present Ministers to be sincere reformers; his real opinion was, that if the right hon. Baronet opposite continued in office, he would not only have to satisfy the wishes, but the suspicions, of the great body of the community. Much had also been said of the character of the present Opposition, and the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, in allusion to the parties composing that Opposition, had said, that out of them it was possible that two Administrations might be formed, but that it was impossible to frame from it one Administration without a great compromise of opinion. What had been the conduct of the noble Lord himself? Had there been on his part no compromise of opinion when he gave his support to the Administration of Mr. Canning, who declared himself opposed to all reform? Again, had there been no compromise of opinion in the formation of the present Government? The Opposition had carried the Resolution on a former evening, by, he would admit, a small majority, and might not carry the present by a greater; but how was that? It was because there were many Members of the House who were disposed to support a Ministry because they were a Ministry, though they disagreed with them then on this Question, and who were willing to give almost any Administration credit for acting on fair principles. There was an instance of this kind of support in the case of a Mr. Hamet, in 1784. That gentleman stated, that he had a great regard for the Ministry which was then falling, but he had a great affection for that which was coming in. He had supported the late Government with all his power, and he would support that which was about to be formed. Something of the kind had been stated to him the other day by an hon. Friend. He said that there was nothing which he had regretted more than the retirement of Lord Melbourne, but that he was extremely glad to find the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government; and the only thing he regretted was, that the hon. Member for London (Mr. Grote) did not form a part of it—a regret in which he had no doubt many Members opposite would not readily join. He had no confidence in the present Administration, and, therefore, he would support the Motion of the noble Lord.

Mr. Francis Bruen

Will the Committee favour me with its attention for a few moments? I never had the honour of addressing the House before. The subject is of the deepest importance to my country. I have resided in that country for an uninterrupted period of nearly twenty years, and for the few observations, which I shall feel it my duty to address to the Committee, may I hope for its courtesy and indulgence? Nothing has surprised me more in the course of of this debate than the conflicting accounts with regard to the real property of the Church of Ireland—the discrepancies which prevail in the statements, even among official personages, who have been connected with the administration of Ireland. The House has resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House to consider the question of the Irish Church, particularly as to the appropriation of its revenues, and nobody seems to know what those revenues are. I apprehend that they have been greatly exaggerated, and that the statement of the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, is correct, and that it is, after all, but a poor Church. Hon. Members seem to have forgotten—at least, it has not been noticed on either side of the House—that the parochial clergy of Ireland, at the time of the introduction of the Composition Bill by the right hon. Secretary of the Home Department, harassed by dissensions with their own flocks, and anxious to conciliate the Catholic tithe-payers, sacrificed in every instance one-half of their incomes. In the parish where I lived at the time the tithe was reckoned at about 1,500l. and the clergy compounded for 750l. In the neighbouring parish the tithe sometimes reached nearly 2,000l. and the rector compounded for 900l. In the parish adjoining that, the tithe was 1,400l. and the rector compounded for 700l,; and in the parish where I at present reside, which I and another Gentleman entirely possess, the average rent being 1l. or nearly so, the clergyman compounded for 1s. an acre, thus receiving not the tenth of the produce, but the twentieth of the rent. Now conies the Bill of the Secretary for Ireland, striking off twenty-five per cent, and if this be not sufficient depletion for the most plethoric establishment, sufficient to satisfy every political doctor on the other side of the House, not excepting the great Sangrado himself, (the hon. Member for Middlesex), I know not what is. But I would grant for argument sake, that it is a rich Church, and that a surplus could be spared, but I still contend most resolutely that every farthing of such surplus would be more than swallowed up by Protestant objects and Protestant wants. What funds are now wanting for the building of churches. In the parish where I lived the number of attendants at church were at first about 200 or 300; they increased to 600. A new church was called for and built, and both were completely filled. A similar instance took place in a neighbouring parish, with similar results. In the parish where I at present attend Divine Worship, a few years ago there were but five or six Protestants, a new church was demanded, so bad was the state of the old one; funds were difficult to procure; but the new church has been built, and there is at present a congregation of 150, and subscriptions are about to be set on foot to erect a gallery, as there are no funds, the church not being able to contain those anxious to come. And near the borough of Carlow, which I have the honour to represent, within two miles of the town, the union having been divided, a house has at present been consecrated, as no church has as yet been built, and it already contains a congregation of fifty. But I would go further still, and granting that there were a surplus, even after effecting Protestant objects, I would ask the House, is it reasonable to hand over such surplus to the Catholic party for the moral, religious, and general education of the people of Ireland? Have not the national efforts been lately given in abundance to that party for that especial purpose? Have they not erected school-houses? But where have they placed them, in order to insure the attendance of children of all religious persuasions? Is it on neutral ground? No; but in their own chapel yards, thereby at once putting an insuperable bar to the system of national education, which was intended to be general, and without distinction of sect or party. But I have another strong ground upon which I object to this Resolution, because it will throw an impediment in the way of the Bill to be introduced by the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, which would effect, as he stated, I quote his own words, the abolition and extinction of tithes; that it would do so I am firmly convinced. You have the testimony of the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, that the plan, when partially tried on his own property, Ireland, completely succeeded; and I have been favoured by a communication from the hon. Member for the University of Dublin, stating that he had received a letter from the agent of a noble Lord, which letter I read, in which the tenants are said to have come in without summons to repay the landlord the composition he had paid to the clergyman, stating that they considered it the most satisfactory method of settlement, and a great boon for them. I can corroborate the statements, and also from my own experience. I have tried the experiment, and by this tithes on the greater part of my estate are virtually abolished. I come now to speak of the great principle of the measure. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Nottingham, accused the eloquent Solicitor-General below me, of having appealed to the basest of all passions—fear. Has the right hon. Baronet never heard of a fear which is the noblest of all passions—a fear which is the elementary principle of all sound counsel—a fear which is the beginning of wisdom—the fear of doing wrong. To that fear I apprehend the eloquent Solicitor-General alluded, and to that fear I in humble language would appeal—the fear, I say, of violating a great and vital principle, upon which, in my conscience, I believe hinges the dearest interests of the Irish community—the very causas vivendi. Cast but the spoils of the Irish Church—afflicted indeed, but not yet fallen, persecuted, but not yet utterly forsaken—cast that prize into the centre of the ring to be scrambled for, and let but the majority of this House cheer on to the quarry a deluded and infuriated multitude, maddened by agitation, with their hearts naturally most kind and warm, steeled to the cruelty of the grave by religious hatred and bigotry, who, in despoiling the heretic Church and endowing to them a true one, think they do God service, and you will soon indeed draw over my most miserable and devoted country a sword that will reek with the blood of the best and bravest of Protestants, aye, and Catholics. To all appearance you seal the doom of the Protestant establishment—the child, the champion of toleration, and at this present moment in Ireland, the great breakwater which alone interposes to repel the storms and waves that assail the power of civil and religious liberty. And do English Members, in the plenitude of their pride and power, think that their own Church and realm will be safe "within the wind of such commotion?" I tell them they will rock to their very centre, and inasmuch as in them lies, they will put in peril and jeopardy that constitutional throne under the shadow of which, through the blessing of Divine Providence, the people of these kingdoms have enjoyed more rational freedom—more firm security for life and property—more individual happiness, and more rational glory than has fallen to the lot of any nation under Heaven. But Gentlemen perhaps do not, or will not, heed these sentiments. I appeal to the hon. and learned Member for Dublin upon another score—I appeal to him, by the love he bears the Catholic peasantry of Ireland, who have such solid and substantial claims on his consideration, and for whose interests I willingly admit he keenly feels. I can assure the hon. and learned Member, and my statements could be corroborated by the written evidence of the Catholic clergy, that I never have put off from my estate a Catholic tenant, even if he could not pay his rent, deeming it repugnant to humanity, as there are no Poor-Laws in Ireland, to turn him houseless on the world. I have done my best to support him; but pass these Resolutions, and in what position do you put the landlords of Ireland? I reside perhaps in a remote district, where there are few Protestants. There has hitherto been a Church, but suddenly I find the clergyman suspended, the doors of the temple of God closed against me, and am spurned from the horns of the Protestant altar; I am denied the means of Grace; I stand excommunicated on the earth. It becomes, then, a most sacred and paramount duty to stock my lands with Protestants that I may again worship God after the manner of my fathers. I appeal to every man in this House to point out any other course that I could or ought to pursue. I do, then, implore the noble Lord, and those who act with him, if they yet adhere to true Whig principles—if they yet, and I know they do, love civil and religious liberty—I implore the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, and those that act with him, for their country's sake—for the Catholic people's sake—I implore every Protestant that hears me, for peace sake—for truth sake—for God's sake—to pause ere by pressing these Resolutions on the House, they inflict such multiplied woes on that country, lest when they are carried, and the struggle that must ensue begins, the awful doom of retributive justice be passed upon us, and because for mean party purposes and low party politics, we have "bitten and devoured one another," we be "consumed one of another."

Mr. Baines

observed, that the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and all who had spoken on the same side, had founded their arguments upon their determination never to consent to the application of the revenues of the Church of Ireland to any but Ecclesiastical purposes. But they forgot that much of the revenues of that Church had, from the earliest to the present time, been applied to other than Ecclesiastical purposes. Suppose the case of a parish—there were many such in Ireland,—without a Protestant family in it yielding 500l. per annum in the shape of tithes, which were sent out of the country to a non-resident clergyman, by a tithe-proctor, who constituted the only representative of the Church of England in it—would the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer say, that 500l. per annum was devoted to Ecclesiastical purposes? He could not: such funds were appropriated to the purposes of Ecclesiastics, but not to purposes Ecclesiastical. If, on the other hand, the Resolution of the noble Lord, the Member for Devon, were carried into effect, a portion of the revenues of the Irish Church would be devoted to purposes to a certain extent Ecclesiastical, viz. to the moral and religious education of the people. This, however, was but part of a system ["Hear, hear!" from the Ministerial benches.] Gentlemen opposite would not, perhaps, have cheered had they waited the close of his sentence. This proposition was but part of a system of kindness and affection by which Ireland ought to be governed, instead of by the sword. The right hon. Baronet, at the close of his eloquent speech on Thursday night, delicately hinted that there might be an appeal from this House to the country. The hint was not very broadly given, but the right hon. Baronet was so understood on his (Mr. Baines's) side of the House. Not a single individual, he believed was intimidated from discharging his duty to his constituents, to Ireland, and his country, by that intimation; but he would take the liberty of whispering in his turn to the right hon. Baronet, that such an appeal would be an appeal from the people to the people, who had so recently sent to that House persons really representing what he believed to be their sentiments. Addresses and petitions might come up from different parts of the country to prop up a somewhat tottering Administration, but he was much mistaken if counter-addresses and counter-petitions, as numerously and respectably signed, would not be sent to that House in support of the Resolution now under consideration. As far as regarded the numerous constituency he had the honour to represent, and a very large body of people in the North of England, he thought he might venture to say, that there was nothing to which they were more opposed than a sinecure Church and a non-resident clergy. Not only would they petition for the abolition of a sinecure Church, and the depriving a non-resident priesthood of its revenues in Ireland, but for the enforcement of residence and abolition of pluralities in this country. In conclusion, he repeated, that he had risen principally to say, that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of his Majesty's Government, and those with whom he was connected, had during the whole of their public life, consented to a large portion of the revenues of the Irish Church being applied to other than Ecclesiastical purposes; and that, if the Resolution of the noble Lord, the Member for Devonshire, should be defeated, those revenues would still continue subject to similar misapplications. He thought that he could not render to his constituents, or to the people of England and Ireland, a more acceptable service than that of making the surplus revenues of the Irish Church conducive to the general education of the Irish people: and under this impression he should give to the measure now under consideration his most cordial support in every stage of its progress.

The Marquess of Chnndos

said, that in part of the remarks of the last speaker he fully concurred. He was anxious to correct the abuses of the Church establishment, and for this purpose he should be disposed to lend his humble aid to enforce the residence of the clergy, and the abolition of pluralities in the Church; but while lie was disposed to correct those abuses, he would not do away with the Church altogether, and hand its revenues over to another establishment. Whatever might be the object of the noble Lord, in bringing forward this Resolution, the noble Lord might be assured that if he once handed over the revenues of the Church to another religion, he could not stop there; and though he might think that he did enough in applying the surplus for the purpose of moral and religious education, he might rely upon it that he would be called upon to do more—he would be called upon to hand over other portions of the Church revenue for other purposes than those of moral and religious education. He had opposed—most conscientiously opposed—the Question of Catholic Emancipation, though he had done so without any feeling of personal hostility against any members of that Church, for many of whom he had the highest respect; but, as a member of the Church of England, he must protest on the part of that Church against any portion of Church revenues being applied to the use of Catholics as well as Protestants. However humble his station in the country might be, he must raise his voice against the proposition now made. Besides, when they talked of a surplus of Church-property in Ireland, what evidence had they that any such surplus existed? Would it not be right that they should first have some information on the subject? Would it not, he would beg to ask, be better to wait till they had the Report of the Church Commissioners, and not, in the absence of all accurate information on the subject, to assume that a surplus did exist, and then to decide that it should be handed over for the use of the Catholics? The hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House had alluded to what he considered as an intimation of an intended dissolution of Parliament. He did not know, nor was it likely that he should, what the intentions of his Majesty's Government were in this respect: but this he would venture to state, that if an appeal should be made to the sense of the people, it would be found that there was a staunch Protestant constituency in the country, who were prepared to protect the Church, and who would not allow its revenues to be handed over to others. The appeal, therefore, to which the hon. Member had alluded, if it were to be made, might not respond so much to the opinions which had been declared by a majority of that House as he seemed to anticipate. If the noble Lord should succeed on this occasion in overthrowing the Government, he might not find it so easy to reconstruct and manage another as he imagined. He would soon be called on by his new supporters to make another alteration in the Protestant Church. Those who now carried him on triumphantly, would, before long, insist on a further reform in the Church Establishment. He asked, did the noble Lord indeed trust in the support of his allies at that side of the House? He gave those hon. Members credit for being honest in the avowal of their principles, and he was convinced they would not go with the noble Lord in a middle course. He was convinced they would, under all circumstances, advocate the principles which they advocated at present. If the noble Lord were to join a new Government, he must be content to go with the stream, and he must go much faster than he went at present, or than he, perhaps, might at any time wish to go. He was one of those who had conscientiously opposed the emancipation of the Roman Catholics of Ireland—he had regarded the measure as impolitic. He, however, honoured the consistency of the Catholic advocates, while he had opposed himself to their claims; and now, acting on the same feeling, he was determined to protect the Protestant Church and to prevent its property being handed over to the Roman Catholics. He was unwilling that this Question should go to a vote without his stating, as the Representative of a large Protestant constituency, his honest opinion on the subject. If he were to refer to the opinions of an hon. Member, given some few years ago, now a noble and learned Lord, and at all times distinguished for his abilities and eloquence, he might almost in his words express his own feelings. Lord Plunket, in a speech delivered in 1824, said—"But speaking of it in a political point of view, he had no hesitation to state, that the existence of the Protestant Establishment was the great bond of union between the two countries; and, if ever that unfortunate moment should arrive, when they should rashly lay their hands on the property of the Church, to rob it of its rights, that moment they would seal the doom and terminate the connexion between the two countries."*

Mr. William Roche

said, in reply to the quotation with which the noble Lord who had just sat down concluded his speech, importing that the Union of Great Britain and Ireland depended upon an union of their Churches, I beg to say that whether Lord Plunkett, whose sentiments he quoted, be right or wrong in that respect, there is another ingredient still more necessary in my opinion—namely, an union of hearts, arising from a sense of justice and good Government. Sir, I was unwilling to interfere in this debate, because *Hansard, (New series) vol. xi., p. 574. as an Irish Roman Catholic, I considered it to involve a subject which could be more satisfactorily and usefully advocated by Protestant good sense, good feeling, and justice; nor would I interpose now, were it not for some observations which incidentally fell from hon. Members during the course of the discussion, and which I conceive require to be set right. Sir, I understood an hon. Gentleman to say that there were three millions of the Irish people who could not speak or understand the English language, and, therefore, that it would be advisable to publish and circulate the Bible among them, in the Irish tongue. Such a project may perhaps be beneficial to the printer, but quite unwanted by the people, for so far from there being three millions so circumstanced, there are not one million, nay, nor I am sure, half-a-million. As a Magistrate in the south of Ireland, I have good opportunity for ascertaining, and I can accordingly say, that whether at Assizes, Quarter Sessions, or Petty Sessions, the aid of an Irish interpreter is now seldom or never required. Sir, I also heard it insinuated that the Catholic Clergy are desirous of sharing in Protestant Church revenue—so far from such a desire having any existence, I am sure that if the supposed boon were offered them, it would be, I may say, universally refused; for, Sir, the Catholics have seen that rendering a clergy too independent of their flock, is not the mode best calculated to make them active or ardent in the performance of their duties. Sir, an hon. Member has adverted to the policy of the Court of Rome in advocating an union of Church and State. Doubtless every Roman Catholic looks up to the Pope of Rome as the spiritual head of his Church; but, Sir, no British or Irish Catholic feels disposed to look to Rome or to Italy for any portion of its political creed. Permit me now, Sir, to briefly advert to the main Question under debate. I was one of those who, by my vote, contributed to, and was gratified by the result, of our late decision, founded, as I consider it to have been, on justice and judiciousness. Why, Sir, if it went forth to the Irish people, or, indeed, to any reflecting people, that be the number of Protestants what it may, whether one thousand or one million, the same staff and expenditure should be maintained, it would certainly and rapidly accelerate an already-growing impression (originating very much. I believe, from previous clerical pertinacity) that Church Establishments are in their nature so inherently selfish, as never to yield, if possible, to any amelioration, or bend to any change of circumstances, but proceed, under all circumstances, in the same career of power and aggrandizement. Why, Sir, would it not be as consistent to say, that whether a regiment be composed of one hundred or a thousand men, it should possess the same amount of staff? It may, however, be replied, that it is expedient to continue the full staff, with a view of re-increasing the rank and file, but if it be found that after three centuries of experiment and experience, such expectation is utterly fruitless, would not common sense and justice dictate the reduction of the staff, till at least the rank and file really, not hypothetically, required its augmentation. Then, Sir, as regards the purpose to which it is intended that the proposed surplus of Irish Church revenue should be applied, namely, the education of all classes of the Irish people, what purpose ought to be more highly approved of by the Protestant clergy, or to what object ought they to make more willing, or greater sacrifices, if it be true, according to the opinion of over-ardent Protestants, that Catholicity is based upon ignorance, for then, according to such opinion, Catholicity must fade away before the light of education; and the force of mental enlightenment and Protestantism shine forth in opposing lustre. But, Sir, if the Catholics thus dreaded the influence of education and enlightenment, would they be anxious and solicitous as they are for the attainment of these objects to their people. No, Sir, the Catholics do not fear or deprecate, but ardently desire, the utmost scope of mental and moral improvement, for no religion emanating from God can fear the fullest enlightenment of the human mind; under which persuasion, the Catholics dread not, but, on the contrary, warmly desire the education and enlightenment of their people. Sir, it is, indeed, high time for the Protestant Church to commence to render itself less unamiable and obnoxious than it has hitherto been in Ireland, and to proceed in making some amends for the past, by promoting, for the future, the improvement, the peace, concord, and happiness of that country, as regards all its classes and denominations. Trusting, Sir, that the Resolution lately adopted, and now reported to the House, is a prelude to those desirable results, it carries with it my cordial support.

Mr. Scarlett

had great satisfaction in being able to state that his sentiments on this question were entirely in accordance with those expressed in a petition which he had had the honour to present from his constituents. This was not a mere question whether, by the disposal of an imaginary surplus for some undefined purposes, funds should be supplied for education, but whether, under that pretence, a confiscation of those funds should take place for the use of the Catholic priesthood. The declarations which had been made by many of the Roman Catho-Members during the Debate were at variance with the oaths which they had taken on their entrance to that House. They were told that it would be no impeachment of their consistency to go a certain length. It would, however, be a great impeachment of their prudence. Would they embark in a vessel that was manned and steered by their enemies? If they did so, they must expect to see the crew take her to an enemy's port, and would be very sorely suspected of connivance. He had as yet heard no good reasons stated why they should abandon the right and pursue the expedient. The noble Lord who brought forward the Motion said he saw no difference between appropriation and distribution. "If," said the noble Lord, any part of the property of a Dean and Chapter, or of a Bishopric, may be taken away and transferred to other church uses, there was no reason why it might not be transferred to a stranger." The right hon. Member for the town of Cambridge (Mr. Rice) endeavoured to support this view of the matter by reference to the times of Henry 8th, and by a proposition brought forward by Mr. Orde, the Secretary of State in Ireland, which, however, had never passed into a law. Henry 8th was not so weak or so foolish as to seize on the goods of the Church. He only took the goods of the monasteries. This, however, was a lay appropriation, and, as matter of right, under the circumstances reverted to the Crown. This was quite clear from the case of the Abbey of Kendal and others. Despotic tyrant as Henry was there was another despotism still worse, that of a majority, who, though differing in everything else, countenanced each other in a spoliation which a king would be ashamed of. Tithes never belonged to the State. They consisted of private property given for the support of the Church. The noble Lord (Lord Stanley) was spoken of as having disgraced himself by his conduct in relation to this question. So far from being a disgrace no man could do an act more gracious than to support the institutions of his country. Could they be the friends of the country who would expose their ancient mother the Church to spoliation? The proposition was supported on the ground of expediency. They were told it would produce peace in Ireland. If there was any hope that the Catholics could be conciliated that might be some inducement to violate a principle. But they were not warranted by experience in entertaining any such hope. Ireland could never be tranquillized but by justice. No man would go further than himself towards the attainment of that desirable object, if he saw some statesmanlike plan submitted to the House. This question was produced and discussed merely on party grounds, to turn out Ministers. They would not succeed. The Opposition had not the confidence of the country. They were already tried, and were condemned by the united voice of the country. When it was understood by the people at the last general election that the Church was to be defended, with what joy did they come forward at the call, and return a majority of Conservatives.

Mr. Ronayne

said, the whole Question resolved itself into this—if the Protestants of Ireland were reduced to 600, in place of 600,000, must the Establishment remain the same? It was surprising how opinions altered with circumstances. In a debate upon the Irish Church in 1824 would be found recorded the name of James Scarlett, the father of the hon. Member who last addressed the House. On his side of the House no language had been made use of disrespectful to the Protestant clergy as was then made use of by that hon. Member. He wished he could say the same of the Gentlemen on the other side. So far from this, the Member for Cumberland (Sir James Graham), whose speech had been lauded to the skies by the Ministerial press, thought fit to insult the Roman Catholic people of Ireland by saying that an unmarried clergyman must be an unholy one. Such an expression as that had never been used on his side of the House in reference to the clergy of the Established Church. Much had been said by hon. Members as to the alliance between the noble Lord who made this Motion and the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. Now there was a kind of alliance between the right hon. Baronet opposite and the noble Lord the member for Lancashire. Of that junction he had read in the English history an excellent illustration, and with permission he would read it to the House. It was in the third volume of Hume's history, and had reference to the Lord Stanley of that day. Just before the decisive battle of Warwick, "the Lord Stanley of that day" said Hume, "raised a powerful body of his friends and retainers in Cheshire and Lancashire, but without openly declaring himself, and though Henry had secret assurance of his friendly intentions, the armies of both sides knew not what to infer from his equivocal behaviour. The two rivals at last approached each other at Bosworth, near Leicester. Henry had 6,000 men, Richard's army was double that number, and a decisive action was every moment expected between them. Lord Stanley, who commanded 7,000 men took care to post himself at Atherstone, not far from the hostile camps (that was just below the gangway) and he made such a disposition as enabled him, on occasion, to join either party." The Lord Stanley of this day had not a tail of 7,000, nor could the Derby dilly contain them. He should not trespass further on the time of the House, he only begged them to remember that not to pass this Resolution would be tantamount to the declaration of war against the prosperity and peace of Ireland.

The Committee divided on the Resolution:—Ayes, 262; Noes, 237—Majority, 25.

List of the AYES.
Acheson, Viscount Baring, Francis T.
Aglionby H. A. Barclay, D.
Ainsworth, P. Barclay, C.
Alston, Rowland Barnard, E. G.
Angerstein, J. Barry, G. S.
Anson, Sir George Beauclerk, Major
Astley, Sir J. Beaumont, T. W.
Bagshaw, John Bellew, R. M.
Baines, Edward Bellew, Sir P.
Bainbridge, E. T. Belfast, Earl of
Bannerman, Alex. Berkeley, Hon. C.
Bewes, T. Fielden, J.
Biddulph, R. Finn, W. F.
Bish, T. Fitzsimon, C.
Blake, M.J. Fitzsimon, N.
Blamire, W. Fort, J.
Bodkin, John James Fox, Lieut.-Colonel
Bowring, Dr. Gaskell, D.
Brady, Dennis C. Gisborne, T.
Brabazon, Sir W. J. Gordon, R.
Bridgeman, H. Grattan, H.
Brocklehurst, J. Grattan, J.
Brodie, W. Grosvenor, Lord R.
Brotherton, J. Grote, G.
Browne, Dominick Grant, Rt. Hon. C.
Buller, Charles Grey, Hon. C.
Buller, E. Grey, Sir G.
Bulwer, E. G. E. L. Guest, J. J.
Bulwer, H. L. Gully, J.
Burton, H. Hawes, B.
Butler, Hon. Pierce Hall, Benjamin
Byng, Sir J. Harvey, D. W.
Byng, G. Hay, Colonel L.
Campbell, Sir J. Hawkins, J. H.
Campbell, W. F. Harland, W. C.
Carter, B. Handley, H,
Cave, Otway Heathcote, R. G.
Cavendish, Hon. G. H. Heathcoat, J.
Cayley, E. S. Hindley, C.
Chapman, M. L. Hodges, T. L.
Chichester, J. P. B. Hodges, T.
Clay, W. Hoskins, K.
Clayton, Sir W. R. Howard, P. H.
Clements, Visct. Howick, Viscount
Clive, E. B. Holland, Edward
Clive, Hon. R. Hurst, R. H.
Cockerell, Sir C. Hume, J.
Codrington, Sir E. Hutt, W.
Collier, John Jervis, John
Crawford, W. Kennedy, J.
Crawford, W. S. Kemp, T. R.
Crawley, S. King, E. B.
Crompton, S. Lambton, H.
Curteis, Herbert B. Langton, W. G.
Curteis, Edward B. Leader, J. T.
Dalmeny, Lord Lefevre, C. S.
Denison, John E. Lennard, T. B.
Dennistoun, Alex. Littleton, Rt. Hn. E. J.
Dobbin, Leonard Lister, E. C.
Donkin, Sir R. S. Long, W.
Dunlop, Colin Lushington, Dr.
Dykes, F. Lushington, C.
Ebrington, Visct. Lynch, A. H.
Ellice, E. Martin, T. B.
Elphinstone, Howard Marshall, W.
Etwall, R. Macleod, R.
Euston, Earl of Macnamara, Major
Evans, George Maher, J.
Evans, Colonel Marjoribanks, S.
Ewart, W. Marsland, H.
Fazakerley, J. N. Maule, Hon. Fox
Fellowes, Hon. N. Mangles, J.
Fergus, John M'Cance, J.
Fergusson, Rt. Hon. C. Methuen, P.
Ferguson, R. Milton, Viscount
Ferguson, Sir R. Mostyn, Hon. E. L.
French, F. Moreton, Hon. A. H.
Molesworth, Sir W. Ruthven, E. S.
M'Taggart, J. Scholefield, J.
Murray, J. A. Scott, J. W.
Mullins, F. W. Scrope, G. P.
Nagle, Sir R. Seale, Colonel
O'Brien, C. Sharpe, General
O'Brien, W. S. Sheil, R. L.
O'Connell, D. Simeon, Sir R. G.
O'Connell, Morgan Smith, B.
O'Connell, J. Smith, J. A.
O'Connell, M. J. Speirs, A. G.
O'Conneli, Maurice Steuart, R.
O'Connor, Feargus Stewart, P. M.
O'Dwyer, C. Strutt, E.
O'Ferrall, R. M. Stuart, Lord D.
Oliphant, L. Talbot, C. R. M.
O'Loghlen, Sergeant Talbot, J. H.
Ord, W. H. Tancred, H. W.
Ord, W. Tennyson, Rt.Hon.C.
Oswald, R. A. Thomson, Rt. Hon. P.
Oswald, J. Thornely, T.
Paget, F. Tracey, C. H.
Palmer, General Trelawney, Sir W. L. S.
Parker, J. Troubridge, Sir T.
Parnell, Sir H. Tulk, C. A.
Parrott, J. Tynte, C. J. K.
Pattison, J. Vivian, J. H.
Pease, J. Villiers, C. P.
Pelham, Hon. C. A. W. Verney, Sir H.
Perrin, Sergeant Vivian, C. C.
Pepys, Sir C. C. Wakley, T.
Philips, G. R. Walker, R.
Philips, M. Walker, C. A.
Phillipps, C. M. Wallace, R.
Ponsonby, Hon. J. G. B. Warburton, H.
Ponsonby, W. Ward, H. G.
Potter, R. Winnington, Sir T.
Poulter, J. S. Winnington, Captain
Power, J. Wilson, Henry
Power, P. Wood, Alderman
Price, Sir R. Wyse, T.
Pryse, Pryse Wigney, I. N.
Ramsbottom, J. Williamson, Sir H.
Ramsden, J. C. Williams, Sir J.
Rice, Rt. Hon. T. S. Wilde, Sergeant
Roche, W. Westenra, Colonel
Roche, D. Westenra, Hon. H. R.
Roebuck, J. A. Whalley, Sir S.
Rolfe, R. M. White, S.
Ronayne, D. Williams, W. A.
Rooper, J. Bonfoy Wrottesley, Sir J.
Rundle, J. Wilks, J.
Russell, Lord Williams, W.
Russell, Lord John TELLER.
Ruthven, E. Wood, C.
PAIRED OFF.
Blunt, Sir Charles R. Fitzgibbon, R. H.
Bowes, J. Gillon, W. D.
Burdett, Sir Francis Hector, C.
Burdon, W.W. Heron, Sir R.
Bulkeley, Sir R. B. W. Howard, E.
Chalmers, P. Humphery, John
Conyngham, Lord A. Morpeth, Viscount
Colborne, N. W. R. Musgrave, Sir R.
Denison, W. J. Pendarves, E. W.
Edwards Colonel Pryme, G.
Speirs, A. Talforud, T. N.
Stuart, Lord J. Tooke, W.
Surrey, Earl of Tynte, C. K. K.

Resolution agreed to. The House resumed.