CHURCH ESTABLISHMENT OF IRELAND.

HC Deb 06 May 1824 vol 11 cc532-88

Mr. Hume

rose for the purpose of submitting to the House the motion of which he had given notice, with regard to the expediency of inquiring whether the present Church Establishment of Ireland be not more than commensurate to the services to be performed, both as regards the number of persons employed, and the incomes they receive. The hon. member observed, that he was well aware that it was a subject respecting which many honourable gentlemen would be much more likely than himself to make an impression on the House. The opinions which he entertained respecting it were well known, and he was well aware that the extensive change which he thought desirable was not conformable to the opinion of the House and the country. He should have been glad, therefore, if any man of more moderate views than himself had undertaken to bring the question before parliament: but, finding that those who were the most competent were not the most willing to undertake the task, he had determined however reluctantly, once more to submit the subject to the consideration of the House. In doing so, he feared he should be compelled to draw largely on the patience of the House, but he assured them, that he would not detain them a single moment longer than was absolutely necessary, in order to place the real nature and situation of the church establishment of Ireland fully before them. He was perfectly persuaded that, up to the present moment, the church establishment of that country had had a more powerful and fatal effect on its condition and prosperity than any individual would believe who had not looked into the subject so closely as he had done. And here he must be allowed, in justice to himself, to observe, that he had not spared any labour which appeared to be necessary, in order to put himself in possession of every possible information on the question. Of the public documents, he had, of course, made himself master. For local information he had applied to those who were the most likely to know the facts; but he was sorry to say that, after a very anxious inquiry of four years, there were many of the facts on which his information was still very defective. If he was not very much mistaken, however, he thought that even on the grounds which he had it in his power to state, there was not one hon. member present who would refuse to assent to his motion. He had last year submitted to the House a proposition on the subject, upon which considerable difference of opinion had been manifested. Unquestionably he had not changed his sentiments; but he owed it, in deference to the opinion which the House had expressed, to sacrifice a portion of the object which he had formerly had in view, and to endeavour to do some good, although not so extensive a good as he had originally contemplated. No man who had at all attended to the public or to the private history of Ireland, could for a moment doubt the propriety of some alteration in the condition of that country. He believed that, without a single exception, there was no example of a country in so lamentable a state as Ireland, under the British government. In former times, this state of things might, have been accounted for, because Ireland was then looked upon as a colony, and so governed. The system might then be expedient: but when we looked back for five-and-twenty years, and recollected the promises which at the period of the Union were held out to Ireland, that its condition should be ameliorated, and then looked to its present state in every department of the government, whether of the church, the law, or any other, we must confess that this was not the change which had been promised them, and that it was far from an amelioration of their condition.

In considering the causes which had led to this unhappy state of affairs, it must be remembered, that they were not one, nor two, nor three, but that they were many, and that they still operated to keep it up. An hon. friend of his (Mr. W. L. Maberly) had, a few nights ago, pointed out one means by which the predominant evils might be lessened; but although he agreed with his hon. friend as to the important alteration which the introduction of capital into Ireland must occasion, yet he could not conceal from himself, that such a measure would be only a palliative. Still, the mere agitation of the question must produce good, and he believed that its beneficial effects had even ahead}' begun. But he would say, that the present state of the church establishment of Ireland, the mode in which its revenues were collected and all the circumstances connected with it, formed a subject of tenfold more importance than that to which his hon. friend had so ably directed the attention of the House. And why? Because it was clear that, however deficient Ireland might be in capital, that capital would never be supplied to her, until she was in a state capable of affording protection and security to its employment. Let the House consider in what way English capital was at the present moment employed. He was in possession of a statement of twenty-seven millions of English' money which had lately taken its course to every part of the world. Nay, it appeared to him, that bad as the security of Ireland was for the employment of capital, many loans had lately been granted to various parts of the world, in which they would be much more insecure. There had been loans to Mexico, to Colombia, to various parts of Europe, &c. Of those to liberal and free states he had little apprehension; but he considered the ultimate return of such loans, by countries like Russia, or Austria, or Spain, as very hazardous. But the fact, coupled with the other fact, that capital was wanting in Ireland, showed what the opinion of the monied interest in this country was of the state of Ireland. No fact ought to make a stronger impression on his majesty's ministers than this. It ought to be a lesson to them and to the legislature. He repeated then that palliatives were insufficient for Ireland. Let the House look at the radical causes of the evil. Those causes were principally the state of religious opinion and toleration, the state of the church establishment of Ireland.

In considering what course ought to be pursued with regard to Ireland, he would first advert to what had been done in Scotland. In the discussions which had taken place last year, much of the tranquil and happy state of Scotland had been attributed to the general establishment of schools in that country. He, perhaps, differed from many who ascribed so extensive a benefit from that circumstance. But, the fact was, that the people of Scotland were blessed with the liberty of being allowed to choose their own religion. If they looked at the state of Scotland at the period when England attempted to coerce the Scotch with respect to religion, as they now coerced Ireland, they would find the state of the two countries very similar. He was quite satisfied that the only means by which Scotland could have been tranquillized, were those which had been adopted; namely, giving to that country the enjoyment of that religion which was the religion of the great majority of the inhabitants of the state. When to that measure the general establishment of schools was added, the present condition of Scotland might be said to have been in a great measure insured. By a parity of reasoning, if the same means were adopted with respect to Ireland, the same happy results would follow. Of this he was as certain as that he breathed, that if the people of Ireland were placed, with respect to the subject in question, on the same footing as the people of Scotland, they would exhibit the same loyalty and the same peaceable demeanour. What was the benefit derived from the present system of maintaining a church establishment in Ireland, opposed to the religious opinions of the great majority of the people? For what purpose was tin's done? To preserve loyalty in the country? God forbid, that such a thing should be supposed. The Irish had never shewn Any disloyalty towards government. They had only expressed their dissatisfaction at the state of things in which they lived. What was to be apprehended from adopting the same course with respect to Ireland, that had been adopted with respect to Scotland? He had turned the subject over and over again in his mind, and he could not see why, in such a case, it was likely that Ireland would be less kindly disposed towards this country, or less disposed in itself to peace and good order. The natural disposition of man was to be quiet; and not to resort to acts of violence and rebellion. All the great changes that occurred in history were the result of oppression and misgovernment. If Ireland were placed on the same footing as Scotland; if the Irish had their own priests and paid them, and were not compelled to pay the clergy of another church, order would soon be established in that country; and English merchants and manufacturers would cross St. George's Channel with millions and millions of capital, to its infinite benefit. Let those who doubted this tell him whether the Irish, in every other part of the world but Ireland, were not as useful and as industrious as the natives of any other country in the world. He had had frequent opportunities of observing them out of their own country, and he had always found them singularly active and persevering in the pursuit of their respective objects. What reason could there be, therefore, to suppose that the vast accession of capital which, under the circumstances he had described, must flow into Ireland, would not be followed by all the benefits that resulted to á country from its possessing a well-employed population.

He had endeavoured to satisfy himself as to the situation with regard to religion of many of the continental states. He found in some that the religion of the court differed from that of the people, and yet there appeared no disturbance, no insubordination, no clashing of interests between the professors of the one religion, and the professors of another. On the contrary, the greatest harmony, because the greatest equality, prevailed. He had procured a list of the tolerant and intolerant governments; amongst the latter of which he was sorry to say England ranked. Amongst the intolerants Spain stood first. In that country no man could hold office or place of trust or emolument unless he were a Roman Catholic; next came Portugal, in which was the same regulation; Italy was the third, and he called upon any man to look upon what the situation of these three powers was at the present moment. There were two others, namely, Denmark and Sweden; in which countries, however, though such was the law, it was evaded; so that in looking around for those who kept us in countenance in our intolerant system, we found that Spain, Portugal and Italy were our great and holy Allies. But he would put it to the House whether they were prepared to act in furtherance of such a system, and in co-operation with such powers? Then came a list of the tolerant states, at the head of which stood the United States of America. In that country all men, no matter what their religious opinions, were placed upon an honourable equality. Every man had the highest employments open to him, no matter, whether a native by birth or a native by law, after the lapse of a certain time—no matter what his employment, or what his creed. And, what was the consequence of this? Did his majesty's ministers imagine, that, in talent, in wisdom, in power, or in energy, the councils of the United States yielded either to Spain or to Portugal, or to Italy, or the only other intolerant nation? But he would not fatigue the House by entering into a comparison of the kind. It was enough for his present argument to find that the government of America was not worse in consequence of this universal toleration, to prove that they ought to give so large a portion of their fellow subjects, an opportunity of shewing, that they were deserving of an equality of rights and interests with their brethren of different persuasions. That a persecution and an exclusion existed with respect to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, was known to every man who knew any thing of that unhappy country. One instance amongst many he would mention. A Roman Catholic gentleman of respectability, with a large family, obtained an appointment for his son in the Excise. Glad of such an opportunity of getting forward, the young man proceeded to the Excise-office, and there his ardour was damped, and his hopes blighted, by his being told, that he being a Roman Catholic, could not be allowed to fill the appointment! This was but one of many hundred instances of the kind which might be adduced; but it was not necessary. If this one fact stood alone, it would be enough for his argument; as it would shew the system of exclusion which had for years run through every department in Ireland. Every corporation, every place of honour, or emolument, was closed against the Roman Catholic upon the same grounds.

Now, he called upon the House to consider, what had been the result of this system of exclusion and degradation? Year after year, they had been called upon to suspend the Habeas Corpus act, to enforce Insurrection acts, and to place that devoted country under all the horrors of martial law. These were the effects which had been produced. No man with his eyes open could deny them. No man who looked into the public journals could conceal from himself the fact, that daily and nightly atrocities were the consequences of such a system—that there was—strongly irritated feeling on the one hand, and powerful coercion on the other. Was this system to be continued? Was Ireland to be kept for ever in a state of degradation, and, therefore, of insubordination? Surely his majesty's ministers must see, that whatever might have been the political feelings of our ancestors, acting in different times and under different circumstances; who, driven by the atrocities of Catholics when the Catholic religion predominated, and smarting under the cruelties which had been inflicted upon them, felt it necessary to enact severe and retributive laws; surely, he said, whatever might have been the feelings of such men at such times, there was nothing now existing which could warrant the continuance of such measures. No argument urged at the former period could be considered as of weight in the present day. The time had at length arrived when it became the duty of the legislature to free the Catholics of Ireland from the shackles which their ancestors had found it necessary to throw around them, but which it was disgraceful they should wear in the present day. His majesty's government was bound to try any system which was calculated to bring about a change in the affairs of Ireland; for no change could take place for the worse. According to all the accounts, there was nothing but fire and sword in the South of Ireland; no man could retire to rest without the apprehension of having his house attacked and broken into, and perhaps himself and family murdered before morning. They had heard much of the evils arising to the country from absentees; but, good God, what man who could avoid it would reside with his family in a country where neither person nor property was safe? Let his majesty's ministers adopt the course which he now proposed, or some other course likely to afford equal relief, and if the people of Ireland did not avail themselves of the relief held out to them, he for one would be foremost in arming the executive with sufficient power to repress that discontent and insubordination, which, it would then appear, could be repressed by no other means. But he entertained no such fear. The people of Ireland were a shrewd, intelligent race, and would seize upon every opportunity of bettering their condition with the highest satisfaction. Why should not ministers follow the example of America, of France, and of Russia, All those powers were tolerant, and they benefited by their toleration. Austria, Bavaria, Wurtemberg, and Saxony, were all tolerant states. There were no religious disqualifications in any of them, and yet their subjects remained in a state of quiet and content; at least there were no religious dissentions amongst them. Why, then, should such a system be continued in Ireland? Ought not the legislature to place so large a portion of their fellow subjects at least upon a footing with the subjects of monarchs whose states he had just mentioned? It was injurious to the character of this country, to suppose that any injury could arise to it from such a change. He was aware that there were points of his argument, upon which gentlemen opposite would not agree with him; but, if it was admitted, as it must be admitted on all hands, that the situation of Ireland was such as he had described it, that was sufficient to warrant an inquiry, as to whether the evils arose from the causes which he had pointed out.

When he and other honourable members had urged these topics on former occasions, they were met by objections to which he would now shortly advert. And first it was stated, that his majesty having taken a sacred oath at his coronation not to, alter the religion of the country, it would be a violation of that oath to sanction a measure like the present. To which his answer was, that the joint consent of the king and the people was sufficient to alter any law, when the public good required it. If such an objection was worth any thing, it went to this—that the king having at his coronation sworn to support the laws, any alteration of those laws would be a violation of his majesty's oath! And yet this was the argument set up in opposition to what they saw every day—namely, the alteration of some, and. the total repeal of other laws, found inconsistent with the welfare of the community. Again, it was urged, that the church was possessed of property, to which it had as much right as any individual had to his private property. True, but then he wished to know who or what was meant by "the church." Did they mean the clergy or the people? When any man spoke of the army, he did not mean the officers but the great mass of the community who composed it. So he considered it to be in speaking of the church, a person so speaking must mean not the clergy but the community who belonged to it. If any honourable member had any other interpretation of it to give, he should be most happy to hear it. If this then, was admitted, he asked for what reason was it that there was in any country any particular church establishment, if not for the benefit of the whole community? As far as his own opinion went, he should be glad to see Great Britain placed upon the same footing as the United States of America in this respect; But this was a subject upon which he did not mean to enter, as it interfered with ancient opinions and long established usages. He might, however, be permitted to ask, why it was, that the English people had changed the religion of the State from Catholic to Protestant? Even this was not a solitary instance. Every one knew what had been done in the reign of queen Mary, and after her time. In fact, the religion of the country had for a considerable time wavered, and this or the other sect was up or down, as the supporters of each were in or out of power. This was sufficient to shew that the legislature had a right to alter the religion as well as the laws of the country, with the consent of the people; and that if the people now thought the Catholic religion preferable, they had a right to establish it as the religion of the state. Why was the religion of the country changed to Protestantism, but because that religion was considered most beneficial to the state? Then he asked whether the established church of Ireland was the religion most beneficial to thát country? And if not, as he maintained it was not, the objects and intentions of government in establishing it at the time of the Revolution were not carried into effect. For if they looked to the acts of king William, they would find, that had he had proper time, he would have placed the Catholics of Ireland upon the same footing with the Protestants. It appeared from the copy of a proclamation of that monarch, that had the siege of Limerick lasted but one week more, he would have done this. Such was his general opinion with respect to religion. In his orders to the authorities of Scotland he said, "You must pass an act establishing such a church government as will be most agreeable to the wishes of the people." Now, if his majesty had been afforded time, was it not fair to conclude that he would have dealt out a similar meed of justice to Ireland? Why was this not done now? Why had it not been done long ago? Was it that there existed some overwhelming dread, that the power and the interests of the few, that the large dominion now in the hands of individuals, would be absorbed by the many? His majesty's ministers had of late, much to their honour, acted with great feeling and he hoped they would advocate his side of the question, when he maintained that the interests of the many ought to preponderate over the interests of the few. He asked whether Ireland was to be governed for the benefit of the few or the many? he hoped the latter. He hoped that as we had returned to sound principles of commerce, we should return to sound principles of legislation. That something must be done was evident. It was impossible to rule a country at the point of the bayonet. He was surprised that it should nave lasted so long. He was convinced that it could not last much longer. The people ought no longer to be left either the victims or the perpetrators of violence and outrage. It was time that some steps should be taken to bring those within the protection of the law, and into the enjoyment of its privileges, who had hitherto been treated as aliens to the constitution, and who would feel most grateful for the favour of an equal participation in its blessings. By doing this, they would not only produce peace and tranquillity in Ireland but they would afford an opportunity of extending to it a great proportion of that capital which was at present stagnant here, but which could be there employed to general advantage. He implored his majesty's ministers to grant this to the people of Ireland, if not as an act of justice, at least as an act of policy. They were called upon by that holy Book upon which their religion was founded, to do unto others as they wished others should do unto them. If, then, they wished to act as Christians—if they wished to be considered as men acting up to their professions, he implored them not to keep six millions of their fellow subjects in a state of degradation and debasement. Let them not draw too tight the bonds by which those unfortunate men had so long been bound. A time must come, and that shortly, when such a system must have an end. There was a point beyond which human suffering could not go. Let the House then now resolve to grant, as an act of favour that which the oppressed Irish had a right to claim as an act of justice. He would ask any man around him to give a moment's impartial consideration to the case. He would call upon himself to change the case, and for a moment imagine himself the persecuted and degraded Catholic, and then put his hand upon his heart and declare that he should be satisfied with such a state of things? If any hon. member would do this, then he (Mr. H.) had not another observation to offer; but, until this was done, until he saw gentlemen saying that they could feel satisfied and happy under the privations of the Roman Catholics, he must continue to assert, that those privations were disgraceful, unjust, and calculated to foster discontent and insubordination in that country.

It was well known that Ireland, like other states, had, in the progress of time, undergone great changes, both in a political and a religious point of view. According to the account of bishop Boulter, it appeared that, in 1733, the proportion of Catholics to Protestants was as four to one. This was, as it were, but a little while ago; and yet the Catholics, without any law to support them, without any fostering hand to assist their progress, had gone on increasing beyond all conception. This was a warning to the government. It shewed them, that that body could not be depressed; that they must be admitted to the blessings of the constitution, or else they must be exterminated. Indeed, the facts of themselves were sufficient to justify the introduction of a change; for, while the Roman Catholics increased in such a degree, the Protestants, protected as they were by the state, having every advantage which wealth and power could give, possessed an exclusive clergy of 1,289 persons—having four archbishops, 18 bishops, 33 deans, 108 dignitaries, 178 prebendaries, 52 vicars choral, and 107 rural deans, 512 minor canons, & c. This list he had taken from the "Clerical Guide," which was of course correct. Here, then, was a permanent staff in the church, which, if possible at all to support it, was sufficient to support any establishment. For what purpose so large a body was kept up, he was at a loss to understand. If they belonged to a church of from fifteen to twenty millions of persons, they might calculate the staff as proportioned to the body; but for a church of 500,000 persons, why, it afforded a spiritual serjeant for every ten men [a laugh]. And yet, what was the result? Out of a population of seven millions, there were no more than one million of Protestants, one-half of whom belonged to the established church, and the others were Dissenters. Such were the results, notwithstanding the numbers, and enormous revenues of the Protestant clergy. Adam Smith said, "if you wish an idle and inefficient clergy, pay them well; if you wish an active and industrious clergy, give them barely sufficient for their wants." Now, with the enormous staff of Protestant clergy in Ireland, and their more enormous revenues, it was found that the proportion of Catholics to Protestants had increased from 4 to 1 to 14 to 1!

He now came to the revenues from which this staff derived their pay: and here he begged to assure his majesty's ministers, that, if he was incorrect, it was solely because the best sources of information were closed against him. He had a short time ago received three letters from Ireland, and it was curious that, though coming from different parts, they all agreed upon one point; namely, that it was impossible for any private individual to obtain information as to the real value of church livings in Ireland. This was sufficient to account for any error into which he might fall upon this part of the subject. According, however, to the best calculation which he had been able to make, there were church lands which, if rented out as other lands were, would let for 2,500,000l. There were fourteen millions of acres in Ireland, of which the clergy held two-elevenths, and taking Wakefield's proportions, and the average value of property in the different counties, it amounted to the above sum. No matter, then, whether this sum went to A. B., the bishop, or C. D., his son, or nephew, or other relative who held under him: some one belonging to the clergy got that which belonged to the church. Adding to the two millions and a half the average sum produced by 1,289 benefices at 500l. a year each, the appointments would make a sum of 3,200,000l. According to Wakefield, the proportion of Catholics to Protestants, in Waterford, which in 1733 was as forty to one, had increased to one hundred to one. In some parishes there was not to be found a single Protestant family; while in several others there were only two or three. It would appear that the clergy had adopted the principle of the Commissioners directed to establish schools in Ireland, and asked, "what use is there of churches if we have no congregations?" as others did "what use is there of schools if we have no scholars?" It should be recollected, however, that there were times when the most hardened persons with respect to religion, felt repentance and compunctious visitings, and that upon such occasions, if they could not go to their own, they would fly to the Roman Catholic Church. Thus it was that the Catholics daily added to their numbers. The Protestant Staff might be reckoned, in addition to the 1,289 benefices, to consist of 1,500 more, including 600 curates.

He now came to the situation of the Roman Catholic Establishments. He found that in Ireland there were twenty-six Catholic Bishops living upon small salaries, of from 300l. to 700l. a-year. Some of them so small, that the bishop frequently retained a parish, the duties of which he performed like any other parish priest. Here the Roman Catholics had four bishops more than the Protestant Church. The Catholic priests, including parish priests and assistants, amounted to 2,500; and, if they allowed 1,500 clergy for 500,000 Protestants, surely 2,500 priests could not be considered too large an establishment for six millions of Roman Catholics. He believed, in mentioning this number, he had stated the outside; and as to their fees, made up as they were of small, and for the greater part gratuitous sums, it was impossible to state more than that they were generally very small. Notwithstanding which they were as charitable as their circumstances would allow; and the way in which they carried their point was by their assiduity and attentions to their flocks. Those who had large stipends were inclined to be idle; those who were limited to small salaries were stimulated to activity and zeal in the performance of their duties. To this it was that he, in a great degree, attributed the great increase of the Roman Catholics; and he asked, whether this was not in itself a sufficient ground of inquiry, as to what had been done, as well as what it was ad- visable to do at present? Another point to which he wished to call the attention of the House was this. It was the opinion of bishop Warburton, a celebrated friend of the church, that "when there are several religions in a state, the state should naturally ally itself to the largest." That was to say, the state should give such religion its support and protection. But there was Ireland, a country, six-sevenths of whose population were Catholic, and yet the state, so far from allying itself with, was opposed to them. The opinion of Dr. Paley, upon the same subject, was as follows—"It is the duty of the magistrate, in the choice of the religion which he establishes, to consult the faith of the nation, rather than his own. If the dissenters from the establishment become the majority of the people, the establishment itself ought to be altered or qualified."—They were now come to that point. If ever there was a time, when such an act of justice ought to be done, it was the present. As to making proselytes of the Catholics, it was out of the question: no man could now entertain a hope of that kind: would it not, therefore, be wise to attend to what Paley and Warburton said, and make the religion of the Roman Catholics be the established religion of Ireland? Would it not be wise to open to them the employments and emoluments of the state? No man of liberal opinions could oppose himself to the wisdom, the expediency, or the justice of such a course of proceeding. And he would put it to the House whether the vast alteration which time had made had not rendered such a step necessary? Let the House, then, as the grand inquest of the nation, at least enter into an inquiry into the grievances existing in that country, and the causes of, and remedies best to be applied to them.

Much had been said respecting the manner in which the clergy of the Catholic and Protestant religion discharged their duties in Ireland. For himself, he must say, that upon inquiry, he had found the Protestant clergy very deficient in that respect, compared with their opponents, if he might so call them, the Catholic priests. In speaking of the clergy of the established church of Ireland, he begged to be understood as not making any invidious comparison between that church and the church of this country. His only object was, to place his facts clearly before the House. According to a return on the table of the House, it appeared, that the number of parishes in Ireland having benefices was 2,224. Of these, 1,391 were in the gift of the bishops. In the gift of the Crown, the number was 293: making the total number of benefices in the gift of the Crown and the bishops, 1684. In lay hands there were 367 benefices, and the universities possessed 21. There were also 95 inappropriate and vacant, and without churches or incumbents. Making a total of 2,167. The return did not state how the remaining benefices, 77 in number, were disposed of. In 1818, the total number of incumbents was 1,289. Out of this number 758 were resident, and 531 were non-resident. The non-residents, therefore, formed a considerable portion of the whole number of incumbents. When it was recollected that every Catholic clergyman resided in his parish, no person could be surprised at the great increase which had taken place in the number of Catholics within the last half century.

Without tiring the House with any detailed remarks upon such an extensive patronage allowed to remain in the hands of the bishops, he would content himself with observing, that it was a system which loudly and imperiously called for a revision. In looking to the numbers of resident and non-resident clergy, he would take the last volume upon that subject which had been laid on their table. He first came to the dioceses of Waterford and Lismore. He there found that there were—resident 4 rectors; absent, 19 do—resident, 13 vicars; absent, 13 do—resident, I curate; making in the whole, 18 resident, and 32 absent clergy; of these there were many pluralists, holding some two, some three, and more livings. He mentioned this case only as one instance out of many and what he had to state of this single county, ought to be enough to satisfy the House as to the necessity of inquiry. In 1766, the number of Catholic families in Waterford, as appeared by the returns of Mr. Wakefield, was 16,519, and between that year and 1792, they had increased to 108,625. The Protestants, in Waterford, in 1766, were only 2,879, and before 1792 even this small proportion had dwindled to 1,375. Yet, for the religious instruction of these 1,375 Protestants, there were no less than fifty benefices, extending over the whole of the county. Did not this comparison of numbers of itself form a ground for concurrence in the motion? Suppose all the Protestants should, in time, disappear from the diocese, was it still to be pretended, that fifty clergymen ought to be maintained, who would have no duty to perform? The comparison in Ireland was now, one Protestant to fourteen Catholics. In time, it might be one Protestant to forty, fifty, or sixty Catholics; and, while this diminution clearly shewed the worthlessness and inutility of the church establishment would any man be so hardy as to insist that that establishment ought to be preserved, at an expense of nearly three millions sterling? [hear, hear!]. To every thing there must be some limit; and, availing ourselves of past experience, surely It was high time to begin a reform of the system. It was not yet too late, whatever it might be soon. There was plenty to be done, plenty of materials, and a rich harvest might in time be reaped, if the proper mode of cultivation were employed. In the first instance, it would be necessary to commence by deep ploughing and breaking up ground that had long been untouched.

There was another important point to which he would direct the attention of gentlemen; without troubling the House with too many particulars, he would select a few examples of parishes in which Catholics formed the whole, or nearly the whole population, and where the tithes were paid to clergymen who did not reside or had no duty to perform. He had a list of the parishes in the north-west quarter of the county of Cork, those which of late had been particularly disturbed, and where the irritation had been mainly excited by the exaction of tithes. It had been said on a former night, by an hon. friend, that Ireland differed from other countries in this respect—that, if local disturbance occurred, it was followed by general disturbance—that the fire spread in various directions. This was true. But why was it true? Because the people at large were prepared for disturbance by discontent produced by ill-treatment. The whole country was like a train of gunpowder, ready to explode the moment a spark fell upon any portion of it. Thus it must continue, until the causes of discontent were removed; and one of those causes and a chief one, was the tithe system. In the parish of Ballyvourney, a great part of which belonged to the hon. member for the city of Cork (sir N. Colthurst), there was neither glebe, glebe-house, resident cler- gyman, church, nor a single Protestant, [hear, hear;] Yet the tithe exacted from the Catholics was from 500l. to 700l. a-year. Such a state of things must compel the people to think. They must form their own opinions, and must feel that every shilling of tithe they were obliged to pay without the performance of a single religious duty, was nothing short of robbery [hear, hear!]. He declared most solemnly that if he were in the situation of the unhappy Catholics of Ballyvourney, such would be his feeling and conviction. He could not help it. He should hold it to be his duty to do what he could to resist the continuance of such a system: and unless he could divest himself of human reason and human feelings, he could not help resisting it [hear, hear!]. Could it be wondered, then, that the peasants, the cotters, as they called them, should be so combustible, the moment the smallest spark was dropped among them? The parish of Torne-drummond contained only one Protestant family and paid a tithe of 700l. In Clondrohid the Protestant families were three or four and the tithe from 900l. to 1,000l. The case of Ahabollog and Donoughmore was nearly the same; while in Inniscar, for three or four Protestant families, the tithes were no less than from 2,000l. to 3,000l. a-year. Thus, it appeared, that the Catholics in seven parishes paid not less than 7,000l. every year for the performance of divine service to not more than eighteen or twenty families. The people were charged with the payment of tithes for clergy, from whom they did not receive the smallest assistance; and frequently where they had neither clergyman nor church, they were called upon to pay for the building of churches in other parishes. This was an additional cause of irritation, and it was impossible to expect any people to bear it.

If the church ever expected to prosper it must be reformed, and one great reform must relate to pluralities. They ought, under no circumstances, to be allowed; every benefice ought to be separately filled. He was satisfied, that if the service of religion were properly discharged, the nation would never be backward in giving clergymen an ample remuneration. Excuses and reasons without number were always offered for pluralities, and why clergymen should not live upon their benefices. The privileges of Peers were spoken of. Peers required chaplains; but three, four, or five chaplains were out of the question, and there were instances where the appointment of chaplains was made without the individual having ever been seen. It was alleged, that some livings were not worth having. He would take upon himself to deny the assertion. There was no living in the gift of any bishop, in this country or in Ireland, which competent persons might not be found gladly to accept. Certain duty was to be performed; and the patron ought to select an individual qualified to discharge it. He had been assured by a clergyman of the utmost respectability, who had made the church and its institutions his study, that there was not even a benefice of 10l. a year, on which individuals properly qualified might not be found to reside. The trial, indeed, had never been made; but the reverend gentleman to whom he alluded challenged it, and was satisfied that the result would confirm his opinion.

He would now proceed to state only a few instances of pluralities; for if he were to go through them all, he should detain the House the whole of the night. On this part of the subject he had availed himself of the "Ecclesiastical Register," Dublin edition, of 1820, which was published under a certain degree of authority. The rev. Robert Alexander was archdeacon of Down, and register of the consistorial court; he held a union of four rectories and vicarages, viz; Hillsborough, 4,000 acres; Drumbo, 5,000acres; Drumley, 1000 acres; and Killelief, 1,391 acres. It all belonged to the corps of the archdeaconry. And here he might observe, that the opinion he entertained of the inutility of deans, prebends, and in fact the whole of the ecclesiastical staff, with the exception of one or two, had been held many years ago by a man not likely to be suspected of entertaining opinions hostile to the established church. He alluded to lord Dartmouth. But before he read an extract from the 5th volume of Burnet's History containing the opinion of lord Dartmouth, he wished to remark, that three individuals who had died primates of Ireland had come to their dioceses with scarcely any property, and had yet left behind them not less than 800,000l. Their names had been given to him, and he had expected to have received an extract from the probates of their wills; he had applied for it, but he had not yet obtained it. If he were in error, he was therefore not to blame. He confidently believed his information, and he would put it to any man, however biassed, whether a system ought to continue, under which three individuals could thus enrich themselves, at a time when such extreme distress prevailed in Ireland, that it had claimed the sympathy and obtained the benevolent assistance of this country? Could any man satisfy his conscience, and quietly witness such an enormous accumulation of the property of the people under any, but especially under such circumstances? Thousands and tens of thousands were heaped together by the clergy, while the mass of the nation was literally dying of starvation. Lord Dartmouth's observations upon deans and chapters were these:—"We hear much of the poverty of some of the clergy, but nothing of the wealth of others; but take it on the whole, and no christian church has a better provision. If the lands belonging to deans and chapters, who are of no more use, either to the church or the state, than abbots and monks, were divided among the poor clergy in every diocese, there would be no just reason of complaint unless that bishops' daughters would not go off so well as they do now, with a good sinecure; and if bishops themselves were brought to an equality of revenue, as well as function, it would prevent the great scandal given by commendams and translations, that are daily increasing. But it is to be hoped, that the legislature will think proper, some time or other, to put them under a better regulation"[hear, hear!]—These were the words, be it remembered of a Tory anxious to support the church not the speech of a Radical desirous of pulling it down. He would leave it to the Peers of England themselves, or to the Commons of England, putting their hands upon their hearts, to say, whether such a state of things ought to continue. He would willingly rest the issue of his motion upon the result of that conscientious appeal. The time was arrived when the evils of Ireland demanded a remedy. Those who ought to be the props and stays of the church, would, in fact, be its ruin and overthrow; amassing, as they were, such princely fortunes, yet shewing the most niggardly parsimony where they ought to be most liberal. When he saw such paltry conduct as had been exhibited by the bishop of Derry, who was in the receipt of 15,000l. or 20,000l. a year, respecting the repairing of a cathedral, he could not conceive what the Irish govern- ment or the church itself could be about. Did they suppose, because the public had hitherto borne with them until their patience was nearly exhausted, that therefore they would be allowed to go on as they had hitherto done with impunity? It was impossible that such a state of things should continue. To use the words of lord Dartmouth it was a scandal to the church and to parliament. Unless the House institued an immediate inquiry, it would abandon its duty; for it was of the highest importance that the church should be rendered honourable in itself, and [productive of advantage to the community.

He wished to render the archdeacons useful, and that they should reside upon their livings. He would state one or two commendams, that the House might judge of them. The rev. Robert Alexander had one or two vicarages in Ossory, and was non-resident, had no church and no curate. He had also a third living, where he was non-resident, and had no curate. In Cashel also, the union was made in 1789, long after the evils of unions and pluralities had been pointed out by Mr. Grattan and others. The public were also much indebted to the right hon. baronet, (sir J. Newport) for his exertions upon this subject. The very rev. Richard Allot, dean of Raphoe, afforded another instance. Raphoe was a rectory and a vicarage, and the extent of the union was altogether 10 miles by 7: he had a curate at Raphoe at 75l. a year; another at Killteevock at the same salary; and a third at Kelligarvan also at 75l. a year. The same clergyman was vicar choral of Armagh and chancellor of the Dublin diocese. The rev. Gilbert Austin, of the Dublin diocese, was vicar of Maynooth and prebendary of Cloncamery in Ossory; he had five vicarages united in 1782, with one church, and one resident curate with 75l. a year. The rev. J. Bingley had four vicarages and a rectory, three churches, and three curates. The hon. and rev. Joseph Bourker had eight rectories and vicarages united in 1804. The rev. James Hamilton, in the diocese of Meath, was in much the same situation. But he would not fatigue the House by going into further details of the kind, which had been extracted with great care and accuracy.

He was confident that he had already stated sufficient grounds for his motion, but there were one or two other points Well worthy of consideration. He had now to accuse the Protestant archbishops and bishops of Ireland, of not doing their duty—of downright and culpable neglect, which he was ready, if necessary, to prove at the bar. There was an act of parliament in force, which provided, that if an individual be appointed to a benefice where there is no glebe-house, no means of residence, if the income amounted to 150l., he was bound to take measures for erecting one before the expiration of two years of incumbency. Much of the non-residence had been imputed to a want of places of residence, and against this excuse the act wisely guarded. Now, he had a list of 20 or 30 benefices where no glebe houses had been erected after ten and even twelve years incumbency. Was not this a point that required investigation? Here was the disobedience of a positive law; and it was fit to ascertain why it had been disobeyed. The number of benefices with the cure of souls in Ireland, under one return, was 1,270; the number of churches was 1,140; the number of benefices without churches, 192; the number of unions, 453; the number of glebe houses, 717; the number of benefices without glebe houses, 529; the number of benefices without glebe lands, 343; the number of resident incumbents, 763; and the number of absent incumbents, 507 It became, therefore, important to ascertain, why the bishops had neglected their duty; more especially as he was informed, that a bishop, now in Ireland, since the introduction of the bill to enforce residences, had given away two livings, where the incumbents could not possibly reside. In a few days, he expected to be furnished with the papers upon this point, and in the mean time, he was assured that the fact was as he had represented it.

He would now proceed to another reason which he thought strongly recommended the inquiry he sought for. A curious circumstance had occurred of late, in which the Irish government was much to blame, having acted contrary to its duty, and encouraged the evil which it ought to have checked. Having made this charge, he would endeavour to prove it. It was well known, that there were such things as first-fruits, and that the sovereigns of this country, in order to equalise and improve the value of livings, had made them over to the church. He wished to call the attention of the House to what had been the practice with regard to first-fruits, and in this instance only he would institute a comparison between England and Ireland. The right hon. baronet below (sir J. Newport) had moved for various returns upon this point, to which ministers would have done well if they had attended. In his (Mr. H's) opinion, the church of Ireland was twice or three times as rich as the church of England. What, then, had it done with its enormous revenues? He could not help thinking that dean Swift was a wiser and a more far-sighted man than the ministers of our own day, and his name was connected with the first-fruits of Ireland. When the first-fruits were given to the church of England, application was made to the minister, Godolphin, to procure the same concession for Ireland. Swift was employed to negociate, and he was told by the minister, that it would be of no use to give the first-fruits to the church of Ireland, because they would not be applied to the purpose for which they were intended. However, Swift succeeded after some persuasion, and the first-fruits were granted to Ireland. It ought to be recollected, however, that there was a difference between the cases of England and Ireland in this respect. In England the Crown reserved the tenths; but in order to assist the poor clergy of Ireland more effectually, the tenths (or, he believed, more properly, the twentieths) were given up with the first-fruits. The gravamen of his charge against the government was this. The first-fruits were fixed and valued in England, and it was provided that they should not be revalued; whereas, in Ireland it was expressly reserved, that they should be revalued from time to time. Three years ago, when he first brought foward a question regarding the church establishment of Ireland, it was seen, that the clergy bad paid from year to year their miserable pittance—he called it a miserable pittance, for it was nothing less than a robbery, by the rich dignitaries, of the poor curates. The first-fruits were given, not to maintain the splendour of those who had already too much, but to provide subsistence for those who had too little, The dignitaries had not done their duty in this respect: they had done any thing but their duty; they had themselves become the robbers, the violators, and the spoliators of the church, which he was some time ago accused of having so needlessly and wantonly attacked. What was called an attempt at spoliation on his part, was, in fact, only an attempt at doing justice to the wronged; and that proceeding had had the effect of disclosing some matters of importance connected with this question. It appeared by the returns, made on the motion of the right hon. baronet, that eleven changes had taken place within the last seven years. Eleven bishops had been appointed; and, what did the House suppose the first-fruits on those appointments amounted to? Perhaps 30,000l. or 40,000l. would not seem an extravagant calculation on Irish bishopricks, producing from 5,000l. to 18,000l. a year. Would the House believe, that the whole contribution of eleven Irish bishops, to the poor clergy, by the benevolence of the sovereign, in the way of first-fruits, was only 910l. [cheers and laughter]? Of all mockeries ever disclosed this appeared to be the most splendid; and he maintained that the government had been guilty of a gross breach of duty, if not worse, in allowing it. He would first show how the valuation stood: and here he did not pretend to go into the valuation of benefices throughout the country, as they must, of course, be imperfect, and, if correct, would lead him into too wide a field. He would compare only the bishoprics; and, this should be the only comparison he would make between England and Ireland. The archbishops and bishops sees in England were valued to the first-fruits in the king's books at 21,324l.; this was a fixed valuation, in consideration that they continued to pay the tenths. The House would scarcely believe, that the valuation of the four archbishoprics in Ireland—Armagh, Dublin, Cashel, and Tuam, was only 1051l. It was absolutely ridiculous. The valuation of the 28 sees (for formerly there were 28 bishoprics, all separately valued, though now united into 18) was not more than 2,125l. Let him (Mr. H.) have the property thus valued to the first-fruits, and he should be most willing to pay 50,000l. for the first-fruits. Nothing could be more scandalous than the whole of this system of fraud; while the people of England, Scotland and Ireland, for half a century, had been year after year called upon to-advance money for the Church of Ireland, to the extent of 780,000l. until the vote was stopped in the last session, the valuation of first-fruits upon the bishops sees, intended by the benevolence of the Crown for the maintenance of the inferior clergy, had been no more than 3,176l. [hear, hear!]. Last year the further grant was resisted, and successfully resisted, until the accounts of first-fruits were laid before the House. From these documents it appeared, that while England had paid 14,853l. in first-fruits and tenths, Ireland had only paid 910l., or about one-sixteenth that amount, though her church establishment was double or treble as rich as that of England.

Such a state of things must have been known to his majesty's ministers, yet they had allowed it to continue. It was also necessary to mention, that patents had been granted to two individuals to collect the first-fruits; one of these was held by Mr. Shaw Mason. The average on the last ten years of the value of first-fruits of the clergy of Ireland, exclusive of the bishops, was 370l. During that period, four years had passed in which not a single shilling was paid, though not one year had elapsed without a number of promotions. He could not imagine how ministers could shut their eyes to these facts. Not only, however, had they shut their eyes, but they had given these proceedings their sanction, and had even gone the length of threatening to turn an individual out of his office, because he dared to promote a new and a more equitable valuation. Such was the fact, Mr. Shaw Mason, when he found that this new valuation was resisted as illegal, applied to a gentleman of the name of Allen for his opinion upon the point; and the opinion given reflected great honour upon the individual, as much as the contrary opinion might be said to have disgraced the attorney-general. True it was, as a friend near him observed, the opinion of an attorney-general was not worth a pin, because it was always what ministers wished it should be. This instance did not form an exception. It was not to be forgotten, likewise, in looking at this part of the subject, that the primates, though they would not allow their own valuations to be augmented, took care to increase the fines due to them; and recently they had been raised, in some instances, from eight pounds to nine pounds ten shillings. This fact shewed that they well knew how to guard their own private interests, though they disregarded the general interests of the church over which they presided. Mr. Shaw Mason called upon the archbishops and bishops to pay what appeared to him the yearly value; which, of course, they refused, on the ground that the valuation was fixed. Mr. Mason replied that, on examination, he found that the value of the livings was to be ascertained from time to time, and he had taken the opinion of Mr. Allen, who confirmed him in the notion he had entertained. The bishops then applied to the government of Ireland, requiring it to interfere on their behalf; and a second reference being made to Mr. Allen, he confirmed the decision he had before given upon the question. The government appealed to the attorney-general, and it was almost needless to say, that the opinion of that officer turned upon a trifling point, that really looked very like shuffling, or at least shunning the real question at issue. He (Mr. Hume) was ready to risk every thing he possessed upon the result of this question—whether the attorney-general would have given such an opinion upon any subject unconnected with the wishes and interests of his employers. In short, whenever any body was disposed to remedy abuses, the claw of the government was thrust in to drag out the unfortunate enemy of abuses, and to defend and cover every species of corruption. He had stated to the House a strong case of an attempt to overbear a man in his endeavours to discharge the duties of his office. He felt honestly and warmly on this subject, and he could not avoid expressing some indignation in adverting to it. It was vain to mince the matter; for unless the truth was boldly stated, it was impossible that justice could be done. Why did the government appoint individuals to perform a duty which they had no power to execute? He would ask the attorney-general for Ireland why those gentlemen were appointed to their situations if it were not to collect the first-fruits by valuation? for it appeared, by the very patent of their appointment, that they were authorized to value benefices under the act of Henry 8th. He would now put it to the House whether it could sanction such proceedings? Would ministers tolerate such abuses? From the liberality which some of them had already evinced on some occasions, he did hope that they would not lend themselves to a system by which the public money was so scandalously misapplied. He did confidently trust that the right hon. secretary for foreign affairs would not throw his powerful shield over men who advocated such abuses, however they might be protected by others. The public now looked up for protection against such gross jobs, and he trusted they would not be disappointed. The Irish government might have relied on the opinion of the attorney and solicitor-general; but at all events there was another legal opinion the other way; and as there was a difference, the poorer clergy, for whose good those first-fruits were intended, might have had the benefit of it. He had known nothing since he had had a seat in parliament, which called more loudly for inquiry than did this fact; and if he had mentioned no other, he thought it would be a sufficient ground for granting his motion.

He ought to apologize for detaining the House at such length [hear, hear]; but there was one other observation which he could not abstain from making, and he did it more to satisfy the scruples of some gentlemen, as to the inviolability of tithe and other church property, than as a reason for a removal of any doubts of his own; for his opinion had long been fixed on this subject. He knew that many gentlemen objected to any measure calculated to interfere in any manner with the property of the church, on the ground that it was a sacred and irrevocable grant. Now, he held in his hand a book published at Oxford in the year 1608, in which it would appear, that tithe and other church property were not looked upon with the same reverential awe as at present, but were rather considered as a property which the sovereign might give to the church, and resume at pleasure. In looking to this subject, they ought to go back to the time of Henry 8th, when the tithes were taken from one set of men and given to another. It was well known, that Henry 8th gave away tithes at will, not merely to the church, but to laymen, and that several lay impropriators at the present day possessed considerable property obtained in this way. Henry's will in those grants was law—his injunctions and proclamations in ecclesiastical as well as civil affairs had the force of legislative enactments; and most of those respecting religion were afterwards passed into law. The book in his hand contained one of those injunctions, in which he ordered, that "the use of holy bread and holy water, and the payment of tithes, should be continued, until the king changed or abrogated any of them." This injunction continued in force until the reign of Mary. It was then repealed, but was afterwards renewed in the reign of Elizabeth, and continued the law of the land up to the present day. He only mentioned this to satisfy the scruples of others, that church property was not always considered of that inviolable character which some members wished to attach to it, and to shew that we might, without a violation of any sacred principle, consider of the expediency of dispensing with any number of bishops, as well as our ancestors had of uniting two bishoprics into one, or might consider of allowing parties to purchase their tithe altogether, by which the disagreeable and often litigious process of annual collection might be avoided.

He again begged pardon for occupying the House at so great a length, but he could assure them that he had not told half what might be said upon the subject. He knew that he might be misrepresented, and that this might be stated to be a mere question of pounds, shillings, and pence. But though, even in that sense, it would be by no means an unimportant subject of consideration, still it was not in that light, he said, he put it. He contended for the principle, that when an evil was known to exist, aremedy should be applied; and that it was the duty of the House not to allow that evil to increase, where a remedy might be applied with effect. The hon. member then proceeded to recapitulate the arguments which he had urged in the course of his speech. The state of Ireland imperiously called upon them to grant to the Catholics of that country, what they were justly entitled to; namely, an equality of civil rights. The principle for which he contended was the principle of conciliating the people of Ireland, and relieving the distressed population of that country from the state of discord, misery, and starvation in which they were plunged. The government would forfeit all claim to the character of just and equitable, if it persisted in the present lamentable system by which Ireland was impoverished and oppressed. The principles of conciliation and toleration were those on which his motion mainly rested; and he had only introduced the details to satisfy the House that inquiry was imperiously called for. If he had at all succeeded in making himself understood, he must have convinced the House that the state of Ireland required a change; and he was satisfied that if the evils which it was the object of his motion to get rid of were removed, all other evils would be found comparatively of minor importance. He had shewn the House that, so far was the existing system from having the effect of keeping up the proportion between Protestants and Catholics, the proportion of Catholics to Protestants had increased to the amount of 14 to 1. He had shewn that the laws were disregarded. He had shewn that the bishops did not do their duty, and that unless that House acted as it ought to act, they never would do their duty. All these circumstances afforded the strongest ground for inquiry. His object was, not to injure the established church in Ireland, or to attack its possessions; but merely to pledge the House to an inquiry; and he would leave it to the House to say whether that inquiry should be by means of a select committee or by a commission. The hon. member then moved, amidst loud cheers,

"That it is expedient to inquire whether the present Church Establishment of Ireland be not more than commensurate to the services to be performed, both as regards the number of persons employed, and the incomes they receive."

Mr. Stanley

said, that, however painful he might find it, to be under the necessity of differing, in some measure, from many of those for whose public character he entertained the highest regard, he trusted this would be considered as some apology for his venturing, however inadequately, to state the grounds on which he founded his opposition to the present motion. Agreeing as he did, in many points, with the hon. member, he could not but consider the time and circumstances under which this motion was brought before the House, however well calculated to secure votes in its favour, as peculiarly unfortunate. The tendency, and indeed the avowed object, of the motion was, at one and the same time to lower the authority of the church establishment, and to alleviate the misfortunes of Ireland. The hon. member had endeavoured to secure in support of his motion, the prejudices of all those who had the interests of Ireland at heart. In a warm and zealous attachment to the interests and welfare of Ireland, he (Mr. S.) would yield to no man. It was but too well known that, within the last few years, attempts had been made by the press, and through the more dangerous channels of private insinuation, to cast odium on the established church. Her revenues had been commented upon with unjustifiable severity, and the private errors and vices of individual members had been dragged forward with malignant avidity, and had been most unfairly employed to cast odium on the establishment to which they belonged. He would venture to say, that if one half of the industry which had been exerted to malign the established church had been employed to draw forth to public notice the virtues, which many of its members displayed in the unostentatious discharge of their sacred functions, the church might have defied the boldest attempts of calumny and detraction. The hon. member then proceeded to contend, that in a matter of such vital importance to the nation, the utmost caution should be used, lest by an indiscreet zeal for doing good we might inflict an irreparable injury. He would not assert that there might not be circumstances which would justify an interference with the property of the church, but he would maintain, that no such circumstances could exist which would not equally justify an interference with landed, funded, and commercial property. Such circumstances did not exist now, nor was there any probability of their existence at any future period. He then proceeded to contend, that as a measure of finance, the inquiry would be unjust and unnecessary, and that as a measure of conciliation, it would be worse than useless. The motion either went too far, or not far enough. The established church of Ireland, should either be supported, or given up altogether. He could not consider this motion as any approach to a system of conciliation. It was, on the contrary, calculated to hold up to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, the Protestant church as one towering above their heads, "in pride of place," and enormous influence of wealth, or one which in turns excited their indignation and envy. It was said that the Protestant church had been forced upon Ireland. It was true that a bigotted, illiterate people, possessing all the virtues and vices of savages, must have looked with jealousy to the first introduction of anew religion, which had the appearance of being forced on them by their conquerors. The Protestant church, however, was now firmly established in Ireland. Protestant settlers had been encouraged under the protection of the law, and he believed there were few members of that House who could calmly contemplate the extirpation of the Protestant church in Ireland. Whether the present proposition were considered as one of conciliation or financial advantage, there was no imminent danger which could warrant them in violating the rights and property of the established church. If it were meant as a measure of conciliation, he would ask the House, what single advantage it was calculated to give to the Catholics of Ireland? The public mind had been prepared for some such proposition as the present, by anonymous statements, reiterated insinuations, and unfounded exaggerations; and a formal attack was new, for the first time, made on the established church, in a point where it was supposed to be most vulnerable, and under the specious pretext of affording relief to Ireland. It was at present only proposed to clip the wings of the church, and exhibit her in a humbled condition to her rival. To shew the temper of the Catholics in Ireland towards the established church, he need only refer to a pamphlet which had been recently published, as a vindication of the religious principles of the Irish Catholics, and which had been acknowledged and sanctioned at a general meeting of Catholics, as speaking the sentiments of the whole body. The hon. member proceeded to read some passages from that pamphlet, with a view of shewing that the tone which the Catholics adopted towards the Protestant church was any thing but mild and temperate. If the feelings of the Catholics of Ireland towards the established church were thus intemperate, it was time to shew that the church was not deserted by the legislature—it was time to shew, that her natural protectors were neither too weak nor too indifferent to uphold her, and that her wealth excited no alarm among her friends, whatever jealousy it might excite among her enemies. Happily the time was not yet come, when her enemies might rush in and lay claim to her spoils, under the specious pretext of affording relief to Ireland, and when, under the guise of toleration, they might give a sanctuary to oppression. It should be recollected, that the oppression of one party was not necessarily the protection of the other. Warmly as he advocated toleration in its fullest extent, he would still grant encouragement to one religion alone: above all, he would avoid all such measures as had a tendency to excite in the one party the bitter feelings produced by a desertion of their interests, and in the other, the encroaching influence of rising power. If this measure were to be considered as one of financial advantage, he was unable to conceive in what way it could contribute to the advantage of the peasantry of Ireland. He would not enter into a subject which had been so frequently discussed as the merits or demerits of the tithe system. It was clear to him, that no peasant in Ireland was so dull as not to understand, that it was a matter of perfect indifference, whether 12s. were paid to the clergy for tithe and 40s. to the landlord for rent, or the whole 52s. to the landlord. It had been contended, that tithes were paid by the consumer; but, whether tithes were paid by the landholder in rent or by the consumer, made no difference to his argument. If they were paid by the consumer, God knew! an exceedingly small portion was paid by the unfortunate population of Ireland!—He would ask, whether the present measure could tend, in the slightest degree, to raise the peasantry of Ireland from the state of degradation in which they were plunged? No man who had not seen the interior of an Irish peasant's cabin could form a conception of the misery and wretchedness which were there to be found. He wished most earnestly that the means might be afforded of raising the peasantry of Ireland from their present degraded condition, of removing from their minds that callous indifference to misery which a long acquaintance with suffering had impressed upon their characters. If it could be proved that tithes were paid by the consumer, he confessed he could not see how a country purely agricultural, and exporting its produce, could be benefitted by the abolition of tithes. He believed that the four great evils under which Ireland laboured were the want of a resident gentry, the want of capital, the want of employment, and the want of education. All these four wants, he was ready to assert, would be materially increased by diminishing the income of the clergy. It was of the utmost importance to the best interests of the people of Ireland, that there should be a class of men liberal, enlightened, necessarily well educated, compellible and now compelled to spend their incomes in the country; a class of men obliged by the decencies of life, if not by higher motives, to live temperately, honestly and soberly, and diffusing the benefits of their influence and example. On this subject he would appeal to the authority of a distinguished prelate of the Irish church, against whom calumny had never dared to breathe a whisper—a prelate not less distinguished by the warmth of his feelings than by the soundness of his judgment. The bishop of Limerick (Dr. Jebb), in his charge to the clergy of his diocese, bore the strongest testimony to the high character of the established clergy in Ireland, and to the beneficial influence of their exertions on the comfort and happiness of the people.—He was unable to follow the hon. member through all his details; but there were one or two points, which he must allude to, for the purpose of shewing how far exaggeration might be carried. A publication, entitled, "Remarks on the Consumption of the Public Wealth by the Clergy" had gone to a fourth edition in 1822, and in 1824 a publication equally hostile to the church, admitted that the incomes of the Irish clergy were, in the first-mentioned work, greatly over-stated. It was, in the more recent publication, stated, that there were 1,309 benefices in Ireland, according to the parliamentary returns, at 800l. a-year average income. Now, it would be supposed from this, that the incomes were ascertained by parliamentary returns to be 800l, on the average. On the contrary, all that was ascertained was, that the number of benefices was 1,309, while the average amount of the incomes was founded on a conjecture only. The manner in which this conjecture was framed, was as follows—In the diocese of Cloyne there were 56 benefices, the amount of the incomes of which was 40,000l. a-year. Now, it was notorious, that the diocese of Cloyne was the richest in Ireland, and because these benefices, not taken indifferently, but selected from the richest of that richest diocese, had an average of 714l., it was computed, that, the average of all Ireland was 86l. a-year per benefice more! In fact, the person forming the computation had taken the maximum incomes of the richest livings, in the richest diocese of Ireland at the highest time, and had taken an average of one-eighth more for the average of all Ireland. The hon. member (Mr. Hume) had stated the average of the Irish livings at 500l. a-year. He (Mr. S.) had made inquiries as to the rate of livings in the north and in the south, and, as far as his inquiries went, he was persuaded, that the average would not be taken too low at 250l. in- stead of 500l., and he was permitted, by the right reverend prelate, to whom he had before alluded, to state, that from his personal knowledge, this average was correct for his benefices of Limerick and Ardfert; and that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, it was correct for the rest of Ireland. When this average was taken, it would be found, that instead of 1,047,000l., the income which had been assigned the Church of Ireland in these extravagant estimates, the real in-come would be found to be about 327,000l. a-year. The estimates of the wealth of the Irish clergy were not only wild and extravagant, but contradictory. It was stated, in one of these publications, that the lands of the bishops, if let at their full value, would produce 600,000l. a-year: and at the same time it was said, that five of the bishops had lands to the amount of 550,000l. a-year. This left only 50,000l. a-year for the other 18 bishops: and, calculating that the lands were let at a fifth of their value, like the rest, it would leave these 18 bishops an average income of 555l. a-year; which was absurd. The incomes of the bishops, like those of the clergy, had been grossly exaggerated. Out of 18 bishops, from his inquiries, he could confidently state, that 11 were at or under 5,000l. a-year; 4 were at or under 6,000l., one under 7,000l., and two others were not well known. Among other exaggerations, was the patronage of the bishops. The hon. gentleman had stated the number of parishes of which the patronage was in the hands of the bishops at 1,300; but parishes were not benefices. He knew that in the gift of the archbishop of Dublin there were not more than 20 benefices of all kinds, and that in the gift of the bishop of Kildare there were only half as many. Many of the dignitaries who figured in the statement of the hon. member, were certainly not in a condition to excite envy by their excessive wealth. The dean of Ernly had 180l. a-year, the dean of Kildare 100l. a-year, and the archdeacon of Raphoe nothing. There was another archdeaconry filled at present by the brother of a bishop, who would, no doubt, figure among the pluralists, who had absolutely nothing for his office, but the necessity of performing its duties. Among the other offices brought forward by the hon. member to shew the evil of an excessive establishment, were 107 rural deans. Was the hon. member ignorant, that the rural deans were in no instance paid any thing, and that the sole reward of their office was the distinction of their office (to which they were generally chosen by rotation), the duties of which were, to assist the bishop in the superintendence of the inferior clergy. The hon. member had stated the incomes of the Catholic bishops to be from 3 to 700l. a-year. This he believed to be very much under-stated; for he had reason to believe, that even the Catholic parish priests had incomes from 300l. and 400l. to 500l. and even 800l. a-year. There was a small parish near Dublin, the parish of Howth, where the income of the Catholic priest was 800l. a-year. He had been informed by a nobleman, whose careful attention to the welfare of his tenantry had been repaid by their respect, nay, almost adoration, and what was more gratifying to him, by the visible improvement of their condition, that the Protestants often paid yearly offerings to the Catholic priests of their parishes—that they were, in fact, compelled to do so, to propitiate the Catholic clergy, and to stand on good terms with their fellow parishioners.—He could state, in conclusion, that many of the highest dignitaries of the Church of Ireland were anxious that an investigation should take place, not partial in its bearings, and that the whole of their political and moral relations to the country should be brought under view. He hoped ere long that some such inquiry would take place, that some commission would go forth to view, with their own eyes, impartially, and on the spot, the bearings of the church establishment on the condition of Ireland; but he should object either to committee or commission, which should set out in a spirit of hostility; which should assert the principle broadly, that the property-of the church should be meddled with. He should object, in short, to any commission or committee, the appointment of which should fix on the minds of the establishment, whose condition was to be investigated, the impression, that their case was decided before they were heard or seen. He regretted, that the manner of wording the motion, and the tone in which the hon. member had introduced it, compelled him to oppose it, at least in its present form, while he felt that it was highly desirable that the House and the country should obtain the fullest and most perfect information on the subject of the Irish clergy [repeated cheers].

Mr. Dawson

concurred in the opinion, that great exaggeration prevailed respecting tin's species of property. The confusion which prevailed in the House prevented us from distinctly hearing the details into which the hon. gentleman entered, in order to show the comparative numbers of resident and non-resident clergy at different periods. In the year 1819, there were 901 incumbents actually resident on their benefices, or in the next adjoining parishes. The hon. member for Aberdeen had estimated them at 763 only; but the returns from which he was now quoting, he had caused to be prepared with the utmost care, and might be confidently relied on. If those returns were carefully examined, they would be found to establish in the most convincing manner this great truth—that wherever the Protestant church was most strongly established in Ireland, there the greatest prosperity, and quiet, and good order prevailed. Where there were the greatest number of glebe houses, there the greatest share of public industry, of commerce, and of happiness was enjoyed. The order of the provinces in these respects might be thus stated—Ulster, Leinster, Connaught, and Munster. Munster was the province in which, unhappily, the established religion was most neglected, or least followed. He begged, however, to bear testimony to the meritorious character of the Protestant clergy throughout Ireland. They were zealous in the discharge of their duties, indiscriminate in their charities, which extended to the professors of either faith, and in their own persons and morals afforded the best examples of conduct to their parishioners. As pastors, they were attentive to the spiritual welfare of their flocks; as landlords (and he said it confidently, notwithstanding all the clamour which had been raised against them), they were indulgent and moderate with their tenants. He would refer the most sceptical on these matters to the present state of the north of Ireland, in order to show, that what he said was the fact; and that in no part of the empire was the service of the Protestant church better performed. To his mind, no case had been made out for the necessity of changing the present establishment of that church, and he should therefore oppose the motion,

Mr. Dominick Browne

said, that as long as the revenues of the established church in Ireland were to be continued in their present integrity, he had no hopes of the peace and prosperity of Ireland. From the last returns, it appeared, that the total population of Ireland was about 7,000,000; of these 7,000,000, about 5,750,000 were of the Roman Catholic persuasion; 250,000 Protestant dissenters; 500,000 Presbyterians; and 500,000 Protestants of the establishment. The landed property belonging to the established church in the same kingdom might be estimated at two-elevenths of the whole produce or rental of the island. What might be the amount of fines levied by them, it was not easy to say; but he should assume, and upon good authority, that their landed property was equivalent to between one-fourth and and one-fifth of the whole island. The hon. gentleman then entered into some explanations of the manner in which church lands were let, and fines taken upon anticipated renewals of leases, &c. A good deal had been said of the deduction to be made from the estimated valuations he had alluded to, on account of the renewal and fine system; but, all this made no difference as to the question of the value of church property, for it only amounted to this—if the archbishop of Armagh, or the dean of Derry, received now, or in 1819, only 20l. a year for a farm that ought to pay 100l. a year, this happened merely because the bishop or dean, his predecessor had, in 1804 or some preceding year, sold the reversion of the lease for 20l. annually. There were in Ireland about 2,500 parishes; and, if his premises as to her population were correct, the average of each parish would be about 100 Protestant dissenters, 200 Presbyterians, 200 Protestants of the establishment, and 2,300 Roman Catholics. If this enormous inequality prevailed in the parishes of England, would such a disposition of property be endured by the majority of the nation, even to the conclusion of the present year? He thought not. The best mode of preserving the Protestant establishment of Ireland would be to make some provision for the Roman Catholic clergy of the country. Some arrangement ought to be adopted, that might make it an object with gentlemen to enter into that priesthood, instead of filling its orders, as was now generally the case, from the peasantry. In such an event, there would be at length something like a cordial communication established between the people and the government. Impressed with these notions, he felt it to be his duty to support the motion.

Mr. Robertson

thought there were but two modes by which it was possible to restore peace and tranquillity to Ireland; and that of either of them the basis must be the union of Roman Catholics and Protestants themselves. One of these modes would be, to admit the Roman Catholic clergy to a participation of tithes. The other (which he had not yet heard alluded to in that House, but which did not seem impracticable, if his majesty's ministers would only dare to attempt it) might be found in the union of the Protestant and the Roman Catholic churches of the kingdom. This might seem at first sight impossible to some honourable gentlemen; but those who were acquainted with the events that had taken place in Europe during the last six years, would know, that more difficult unions of religious sects had been, in that interval, effected upon the continent. Let the government take measures, therefore, to ascertain what the differences of doctrine were, as between the established church and the Roman Catholic church of Ireland. It would be found, that there were no essential differences of faith; and that, in the main, the creed of one was the creed of the other persuasion. Archbishop Tillotson had stated, that the Apostle's creed, as it was expounded by the four first councils, was the faith also of the churches of Rome and England. Now the variations of religious doctrine, as between the Lutherans and the Calvinists, were more grave and weighty, possibly, than any between Romanists and Protestants. The one sect was totally opposed to the other; and yet, in 1817, the government of Prussia, being highly sensible of the advantages which must accrue to the country from their union, sanctioned that measure; and it had been carried into effect with the best consequences, not only in that kingdom, but in Hesse Cassel, Bavaria, and over the greater part of Germany. Archbishop Tillotson had once corresponded with France, in order to bring about some arrangement of the kind between the Protestant and Catholic churches; and the bishop of Durham had expressed an opinion as to the practicability of the scheme. He had stated, in an address to his clergy, that though it might be described by many as a hopeless project, it appeared to him, that there was more opportunity at present than at any former period. Would it not, then, he asked, be an undertaking well worthy of the attention of government to take some steps in order to bring about so desirable a result? Rome, he was certain, if applied to, would willingly make any reasonable concessions to meet the spirit of conciliation and of union. This would, in his judgment, be the best mode of at-tempting to restore peace to that afflicted country; for, however they might talk of infusing capital and promoting education and industry, these efforts must fail in their object, if the minds of men were not satisfied and reconciled, upon a topic so much calculated to excite their feelings. For these reasons he should support the motion, which he thought calculated to lay the foundation of lasting benefits to the people of Ireland.

Mr. Grattan

thought that great advantage was likely to arise out of the motion, and under that impression he would give it his support. He well remembered that in the years 1808 and 1809, when the question of Irish grievances was fully debated, and his lamented father had taken a conspicuous part in the discussions, the general impression was, that the tithe system was the great evil of Ireland. Being satisfied in his own mind of the truth of that opinion, he should vote for the motion of the hon. gentleman, which was not brought forward in a feeling of hostility to the church, nor calculated to interfere with its interests; but, on the contrary, to promote them by leading to the correction of those abuses under which it suffered.

Mr. Plunkett

said, it was not his intention to have made any observations on the motion before the House, but having been so directly alluded to by the hon. mover, he was anxious to prevent the House from remaining under the delusion which the speech of the hon. gentleman was likely to create, if permitted to go uncontradicted. He thought he should not discharge his duty to the House and to himself, without, in the first place, making a few observations on the general subject in respect of which those opinions had been offered. And he should do so, rather for the sake of rescuing a cause to which he had always been conscientiously attached, but to which much allusion had been unnecessarily introduced into the discussion of this evening, and supported, he would say, by arguments of such a nature that they were calculated to do it the greatest harm, in the mind of every honest and well-judging person in the House. The hon. gentleman who bad introduced this motion, had consumed the greater part of the time which he had felt it proper to devote to its support—not in the discussion of the merits of the Protestant church of Ireland, or her clergy, but of those of the Roman Catholic priesthood. And really, when the hon. gentleman coupled the expression of his approbation of that priesthood with the exposition of his plan for pulling down the revenue of the Protestant church in that country, of transferring and delivering it into the hands of the Roman Catholic hierarchy (for such was the scope of his proposition), the House would give him (Mr. P.) leave to say, that he deprecated the hon. gentleman's advocacy of their cause, more than he should lament his hostility to it [hear]. For himself, he had ever been, and to the last hour of his life would continue to be, unalterably the advocate of his Roman Catholic brethren; but, in doing so, he would ever respect established rights and recognized institutions; and, while he vindicated the claims of the Catholics, he should carefully abstain from offering any wrong to the Protestant clergy—any encroachments on their property—any aggression on their sacred functions. Such were not the ingredients of the great question which he had already had the honour of submitting to the House. Such were not the wishes, nor the opinions, either of the Roman Catholic clergy or laity. He asked it, therefore, of the candour of the House, not to allow the cause of the Catholics of Ireland to be affected by what had been said that night by the hon. gentleman. If that hon. gentleman's arguments had rested merely upon the wording of his motion, he did not know that there was a great deal in that motion with which he should absolutely quarrel; but he must judge of it by the spirit and the arguments with which it had been supported; and when he heard some gentlemen (very few, undoubtedly) supporting it by their cheers, he could not feel that he was quite safe in embarking with such company. He would not sail in the same vessel with the hon. gentleman and his friends to the high latitudes to which they proposed to run; not could he agree to sail under sealed orders, that might be broken at a time when he could no longer escape out of their bark, and get back to the terra firma of the constitution which they had quitted. The hon. gentleman was for no church establish- ment [hear]. Did he do the hon. member injustice? Had he misunderstood him? "He spoke" (continued Mr. Plunkett)"of America as a model in this respect. Take notice, Mr. Speaker, and let the House, I conjure it, well remember, that this is the model which the hon. gentleman proposes to us. He would have us throw away our venerable institutions, our old establishments, and our ancient forms, and adopt those of republican America in their stead." But, these were principles which, though they had been advanced by the hon. gentleman, would find, he trusted, no advocate in that House. It did happen, however, that, in the latter part of his argument, the hon. gentleman had dismissed the American model he had proposed in its commencement; and, after suggesting that there ought to be no church establishment at all, he had proceeded to state, that he did not altogether, as it were, disapprove of a hierarchy, but would have it established according to the prevailing prejudices of a nation. He had instanced the conduct of king William in Scotland, as tending to show that, in these cases, the opinions of the majority of the country should be deferred to: and, in this portion of his speech, the proposition of the lion, gentleman rather appeared to be, that the property of the church ought not to be taken away, but that the larger portion of it should be transferred to the Roman Catholics. Much, however, as he regretted the principles upon which the hon. gentleman seemed to found his motion, the means suggested for carrying its design into execution, were at least equally objectionable. The hon. member evidently thought that parliament were at liberty to deal with the property of the church exactly in the same way as if it were a tax, or any other property of the state; and this opinion he grounded upon a supposition of public necessity. Now, that the property of the church might not be interfered with, as well as the property of the state, in a case of public necessity, he would not assert. But, be it observed, that upon the same principle, the private property of every man in the kingdom was equally liable. He knew very well, that both the property of the church and the property of individuals must yield to the exigencies of the state: to those, the property of the hon. gentleman himself, as well as of every other member who heard him, must give way; but, he would maintain, that the property of the church was as sacred as any other.—And, then, the question came as to the construction of the exigency which should call for these encroachments on it. What was the public exigency that required it to be withdrawn from its present possessors? Or what was the public good to be acquired by so withdrawing it? He was unwilling to enter into this part of the subject, which had been already so amply, and so ably discussed, by an hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Stanley). And he could not allude to that hon. member, without congratulating him and the House on the proofs he had so recently evinced of sound intelligence and manly eloquence; and on the resources which he had exhibited in manifesting his capability of drawing upon them during the exigency of a long debate, for answers to objections that had been incidentally taken. It was, therefore, that he begged to offer his congratulations to the hon. gentleman and the country, and the cause which he had advocated, and the noble stock from which he had sprung, and which had now received a most gratifying accession to its family honours. [hear]. Was it the opinion of the hon. mover, that, in lieu of tithes, something in the shape of a tax ought to be levied on the land? He had not opened so much of his proposition; but, such was the inference that the House was warranted in drawing from what the hon. member had stated. He believed that it was one of the calamities of the country, that there was not consideration enough had to the comforts of the lower classes of the people; but, if the tithes were taken away from the clergy, they would fall into the hands of the landlords; and, he must again repeat, that to take away the ancient rights of one class of persons, to give them to another, could not be termed any thing else but spoliation. If they began with the church, let the landholder look to himself, and let the fund holder also take care of himself, as he lay even more conveniently than the landholder.—He would beg to advert to one of the numerous exaggerations of the hon. member for Aberdeen. He had stated, that there were upwards of 300 or 400 clergymen who were absentees. He did not exactly know the number, but he believed a hundred or two would not be thought material, when he came to state what the numbers really were.

Mr. Hume

, across the table, said there were 531.

Mr. Plunkett

, in continuation, said, that he feared he should hardly get credit with the House when he said, that if they struck off the 500 from that number, the remaining 31 would be a considerable exaggeration. He did not mean to accuse the hon. member of intentional mis-statement; for indeed he went painfully and elaborately to work, but on inaccurate grounds. Where there was a union of two parishes, he called the clergyman who had the union a pluralist, and an absentee if he did not reside on both the livings [a laugh]. What he was now about to state had been communicated to him by a person high in rank and talents, and more likely to obtain accurate information on all matters connected with the church than the hon. gentleman. That distinguished person had assured him, and he was incapable of making the assertion if it was not correct, that out of the whole number of the clergy, there were not twenty who did not reside on their parishes in Ireland. If the hon. gentleman still persisted in his oddity of 531, he (Mr. P.) could say, of his own knowledge, that, so far as he had witnessed the conduct of the clergy of the established church in Ireland, no men could be more assiduous in the performance of their moral and religious duties. It was true, that among them, as among all great bodies, there were some exceptions to be found; some, who, instead of attending to the performance of their duties, absented themselves from their parishes, and came to watering places in this country, where they were only anxious to cut a figure as bucks and swaggerers. But, generally speaking, the conduct of the established clergy of Ireland was unimpeachable, and their excellence appeared in a stronger light, from the contrast of such exceptions.—Another observation of the hon. member for Aberdeen was, that they had misconducted themselves in the misapplication of first-fruits; and, in his arguments upon that subject, he had charged the law officers of the Crown with countenancing this abuse, and had alluded to an opinion of his (Mr. P.'s) own, which he had represented as calculated to mislead them. The House would not expect that at that distance of time he could call to mind all the particulars on which his opinion was founded; but he would briefly state the nature of those circumstances, as far as he could recollect them. The first-fruits were vested in the Crown by certain acts of Henry 8th and Elizabeth. When his opinion was required, he interpreted the value of the first-fruits as depending on the amount which appeared in the king's books, and not on their value at the present time. In the reign of queen Anne, they were transferred to the commissioners of first-fruits, who held them liable, of course, to the same interpretation. The gentleman who collected them, took it into his head, that he would not admit the value as it appeared in the king's books, but insisted on the full present value. He (Mr. P.) had stated in his opinion, that the officer already alluded to had no such right, especially as, up to the period of his decision, they had always been collected on the former principle. He had no power to make such a change, for he had no means to inform himself on the subject; he could neither administer an oath, nor command an investigation. If there was to be a change, the act of parliament had pointed out the mode in which it should take place: namely, by the appointment of a commission with the lord chancellor and the master of the rolls at its head. Such were the grounds upon which his opinion was founded; and he was sure the House would not consider him very culpable in deciding on a question of that nature, as the established usage and obvious interpretation of the law required. With respect to the Protestant establishment of the country, he considered it necessary for the security of all sects; and he thought that there should not only be an established church, but that it should be richly endowed, and its dignitaries be enabled to take their: stations with the nobles of the land. 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 would 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.

Sir Francis Burdett

rose, and addressed the House to the following effect:—

It is not my intention, Sir, at this advanced stage of the debate, to endeavour to do more than to state briefly the grounds upon which it is my intention to support the motion of my hon. friend. Indeed, Sir, deeply interested as I feel in every thing which relates to Ireland, I am at all times greatly embarrassed, whenever I have to approach a question in which that unfortunate country is in any way concerned. The evils under which she labours are so vast and so numerous, as not to meet with a parallel in the history of any people in the known world. So deeply seated are those evils, and so impressed am I with a conviction of the importance of entering into a full examination of a state of things so dangerous to the happiness of both countries, that I cannot but feel great embarrassment in confining myself to any question of particular grievance, separate and detached from the general grievances under which Ireland has so long laboured. The existence of those evils is admitted by men of all and of every party. Notwithstanding which, if we advert to them generally, the moment we embark on that sea of affliction, we are stopped short by the ready answer—"We see the evils as plainly as you do; we acknowledge their existence; but no earthly wisdom can remedy them; the subject is too great to be grappled with: before we can proceed to investigate, we must have some specific grievance pointed out, which it is within our means to remove." If, as in the present instance, a particular grievance is pointed out, then we are told, "this is not a grievance the removal of which will cure the complicated evils complained of." The right hon. and learned gentleman has, Sir, to my great astonishment, described the church of Ireland as not being any grievance, and as not being felt by the people of that country as a cause of any evils. This statement I heard, Sir, with very considerable astonishment; for it is the most extraordinary assertion I ever heard made in this House; and, coming as it does, from the right hon. and learned gentleman, it affords a melancholy prospect for those millions of Irishmen who had looked up to that right hon. and learned gentleman, both from his great talents, and the influence of his high station, as the person best calculated to remove some of the numerous evils under which they have so long been groaning. The statement, however, which the right hon. and learned gentleman has just made, must blast all their prospects, and make them give up every hope of ever recovering their rights, or obtaining a redress of their grievances.

With regard, Sir, to the particular question now before the House, I hardly know how to enter upon it. I am inclined to think that I entertain some rather particular views on the subject of the evils with which Ireland is afflicted; and they extend so far, that I am fearful they would be considered as visionary, and without the scope of ordinary practice. But, unless, Sir, we get out of the track of parliamentary routine, unless we forsake the common path of government proceedings, we shall never be able to grapple with those evils, nor find courage to apply a remedy. After ages of accumulated evils on that unhappy country—accumulated either for want of courage to search them, or inclination to apply any remedies—it is at last come to this, that something must be done. The wounds must be probed to the bottom with a steady hand, provided we wish to heal them. In one observation of the right hon. and learned gentleman I fully agree. I agree with him in the tribute he has paid to the talents of the young member on this side of the House, who spoke second in the debate, and whose eloquence fully merited all that the right hon. and learned gentleman has said of it. I do not, however, think, Sir, that that speech gave any efficient support to the side of the question which it espoused, although the hon. gentlemen opposite seem inclined to ride off upon it, instead of coming forward as the ministers of the Crown, and declaring what are their opinions with regard to the extent of the mischief, and what are the views entertained by them as to the remedies necessary to be applied to the complicated evils under which Ireland is at present labouring. And until the right hon. and learned gentleman got up, I was inclined to think that the debate was to be suffered to pass off, on the flimsy pretext, that the speech of the hon. member who spoke second, was a full and satisfactory answer to all the striking statements made by my hon. friend the member for Aberdeen. I confess that I do not think this a worthy or a proper course. Much has, indeed, been said of the inaccuracy of the statements of my hon. friend. This, Sir, is easily asserted; but, can it be as easily proved? The hon. gentlemen who have taken a part in the debate have certainly not proved it. But if my hon. friend is inac- curate, the returns and reports made to this House must be inaccurate; for all his statements were taken from them: and for their accuracy he did not vouch, knowing as his hon. friend well did, that returns made to this House are very frequently inaccurate. Such sort of accusations, therefore, are not fair; neither are they of any value.

With regard to the church of Ireland, I, Sir, am one of those who do not believe church property to be so mischievous to a country as many persons imagine; but neither on the other hand do I consider it so sacred, or to stand on the same footing, or to be hedged round with the same protections as private property. The property of the church, Sir, is pay given for a public service, and it requires that that service should be performed. One portion of it was given for pious uses. And as to the donors who were, according to some gentlemen, to have their gifts set aside by any alteration of church property, I will ask, to what church did they give this property? Certainly not to the church which now holds it, but to another from which it was taken by the state, and transferred to this. As to the arguments, therefore, which have been addressed to the interest of the landed gentlemen, telling them to beware of shaking their own property by suffering that of the church to be touched, I trust, Sir, that the landed gentlemen in this House have too much good sense to adopt any fear of the kind, and too much manliness not to treat such opinions with contempt. If it can be shewn, that the property of the established church in Ireland is so distributed as to be a great evil—if it can be shewn, that by altering that distribution we shall largely promote the interests and happiness of all the people, that we shall benefit the public—if it can be shewn, that this property is an enormous grievance—will it not be absurd to say, that it is not to be touched—that parliament cannot alter the destination of the property of the church, when it is shewn, that this destination is an alarming evil, and that the alteration would be productive of great public good? But, Sir, I will admit, for the sake of argument, that church property is as sacred as private property. Is not the principle on which private property is held sacred, that of the public good? If the right of private property is proved to be an evil to the public, to the community at large, private property will no longer be sacred in my estimation; for the sole end of all government, the single reason, why any and every right is held sacred, is the good of the community. When, therefore, it is argued, that we cannot touch church property—that we cannot alter its destination—this does seem to me so childish as to be unworthy of an answer, and undeserving even of consideration.

With regard to the church of Ireland, the single question is, does that church do good or evil? Is Protestant ascendancy—for that is what is meant by preserving the church—of so much benefit, that it must at all hazards be preserved, or is it not a curse to the people of Ireland? Even if it can be proved that the Protestant ascendancy is not an evil, it does not follow that the church should be protected in all its wealth. But if that ascendancy is the cause why all classes have not equal rights; if it prevents the government from doing justice to all its subjects; if it exposes the majority to the tyranny of a small number, and will not allow the nation to be governed by any other principle than terror; then, Sir, I cannot consider this Protestant ascendancy as so necessary to be preserved; or that it is not of more harm than good. Again: If the Protestant ascendancy in the church were destroyed, does it of necessity follow that the country will be ruined, as the right hon. and learned gentleman has stated? I think not. But, unless Catholic emancipation be carried; unless the Irish shall no longer be persecuted for an adherence to that religion which is to them an honour—for they conscientiously adhere to it, every motive of interest being against their adherence—I am sure. Sir, we shall have neither tranquillity nor justice in Ireland. And after such a testimony as this adherence bears to their conduct, shall we be told that they cannot be trusted on their oaths; that no security they can offer is adequate; and I that danger would ensue from the measure of Catholic emancipation? But this is to shut our eyes, for the sake of avoiding an imaginary danger, to the great danger which arises from neglecting to do an act of absolute justice.

Some gentlemen have urged other reasons for the evils which afflict Ireland. One gentleman says, that they arise from a want of education; another, that they want capital; another, that they want a taste for the comforts and conveniences possessed by the people of this country, to call into exertion their industry and genius; and a thousand other things beside are said to be wanted in Ireland. From this variety of opinion it may be seen how difficult it is to pitch upon the real cause; and perhaps the truth may be that a combination of causes is at the bottom. Certainly, the people of Ireland do not want a taste for the pleasures or comforts of life. There is, in fact, no people on earth more susceptible of such impressions. He remembered a story, which is applicable to this point. A gentleman riding along the high road, saw an Irishman at work upon it, who, he knew, had but a few months before been left a pretty considerable legacy. He asked him, how he came to be working there, since he had so recently received his legacy? "Faith," said the man. "its all gone, for I had a mind to see how gentlemen lived who had 200l. a year." It cannot therefore be justly said, that the Irish want a taste for the comforts of life. As to their industry, they are the most industrious people in the world, and are scattered all over this country, seeking the means of obtaining those comforts for which they are said to have no taste. Why, their industry inundates England, and they have thereby greatly contributed to degrade the people of this country to the same level as themselves. I do not wish to prevent this; but it is the mode in which the wretched system pursued with regard to Ireland has brought its own punishment along with it. So great is the industry of the Irish, and so great their burthens, that it is not uncommon, I understand, for a man to come to London to earn by his labour money wherewith to pay his landlord's rent. Indeed, the industry of the Irish, and their emigration into England, are fast pushing her into the same state as Ireland. If nothing is done to remedy the miseries of Ireland, they will overflow and destroy England. Sir, I do not think I am far wrong, when I say, that the whole amount of the poor rates in England are paid by the landed gentlemen for the poverty of Ireland. The influx of Irish labourers into the English market has done more to degrade the poor of this country, than even the mode in which the magistrates have administered the poor-laws. I do not say this harshly, or with any view to cast reflections, but, bad as the mode of administering these laws has been, there is such a spirit in the British peasantry, such an aversion to dependence, that they would have borne up against this, had they not been overwhelmed by the influx of the Irish. The hon. member, whose speech had been so much praised by the gentlemen opposite that they seemed to consider it a perfect "God send," and as very pleasantly taking of the edge of the debate—that hon. member had read an extract from a pamphlet in which the evils were all ascribed to a redundant population. Certainly, Sir, the redundant population which has grown up in Ireland is a great evil. But how has it grown up? By the Irish gentlemen splitting their land into small portions, so that there was always a prospect of the people getting one of these many subdivided portions, and the competition for them was perpetual. If they can get potatoes, and live in the very worst way possible, they will give up all the produce of their industry for permission to occupy one of these spots, and cultivate it. For this evil, Sir, which is the greatest of all, I see but one remedy; and the situation of Great Britain is particularly favourable for adopting it. This remedy is colonization. We have a redundant population, and we have most magnificent colonies, capable of producing every variety of corn and fruit, and blessed with the finest climates. In the present state of Ireland, then, colonization, and colonization on a large scale, is the only remedy for this redundant population. Sir, it must not be conducted on a small scale like that at the Cape of Good Hope, where it seems as if the people were sent out only to starve to death, but on the old Roman plan. For such an object no money should be grudged; and all that is necessary is to take care, while it is carrying into execution, that the gentlemen of Ireland alter their plans of managing their land. The expense cannot be objected to, after the profligate vote of 500,000l. for churches and the 300,000l. for repairing Windsor Castle, which no man knew wanted any repairs. These, two sums, amounting to 800,000l. would go a great way to carry into effect an extensive system of colonization: a system too which, after a short time, will yield an ample return, and will be, much more effectual than Mr. Owen's plan, which, after the first generation, would reduce all Ireland to a state of pauperism. As to the immediate question before the House, I contend, Sir, that no arguments whatever have been urged against my hon. friend's statements. As far as argument went, nothing has been said which should make the House reject the motion of my hon. friend. The motion was to be taken separate from the speech of his hon. friend; but the only argument against it was borrowed from his speech, and from that it was inferred, that the motion was made in a spirit of hostility to the church establishment of Ireland. I hope the House will adopt the motion of my hon. friend. His statements are denied; but, grant his motion for inquiry, and there will be ample opportunity of proving whether those statements are true or false. The right hon. and learned gentleman, indeed, has stated, to my utter astonishment that there are only some twenty absentee clergymen from Ireland. My hon. friend has made a very different statement. Here then, is a subject for inquiry. Let this point be brought to the test. Let not dust always be thrown in the eyes of the people. But let them sometimes see us in earnest in finding out the causes of their misery. If the opponents of the measure vote for the motion, they will have an opportunity of proving those statements, which now rest only on the ipse dixit of some unnamed person. According to the statement of the right hon. and learned gentleman, the Irish church, instead of being careless and negligent of its duty, might be taken as a pattern even for its sister in this country. But even if they are negligent, it is of little matter. They are sent to teach duties and doctrines which the people abhor. The right hon. and learned gentleman has reflected on the land-owners, but it would be better to have gentlemen enjoy the property of the church, and that they should have the salaries themselves to reside, than a class of men who can have no community of feeling or interest with their flock, who come not, to use the emphatic language of Scripture, "to bring peace, but a sword," and who, by their situation, were disliked by the people, who never could amalgamate, nor come in contact with them, but in hostility. Those members who wish to oppose the motion are put to their shifts, and impute motives instead of finding arguments. But the speech of my hon. friend, has nothing to do with the motion, that it should be rejected if it be good. It will be wise and honest to enter into the inquiry. Other inquiries may arise out of it which may lead to still more beneficial results. The hon. baronet sat down amidst loud cheers.

Mr. Leslie Foster

said, the question appeared to be, how much or how little of the property of the church of Ireland was now to be confiscated? To accede to the present motion would be, to a great proportion of the people of Ireland, a positive infliction of evil, and to the remainder of it no benefit whatever. Indeed, he could not give his assent to the proposed inquiry, as he considered it to be demanded upon assumptions that were notoriously unfounded. The first assumption of the hon. member for Aberdeen was the total insignificance of the Protestant population of Ireland when compared with the Roman Catholic. The hon. member had said, that the number of Protestants did not exceed five hundred thousand. Now, the House was in possession of data which enabled it to judge of the correctness of that assertion. The population of Ireland consisted of six millions and three quarters of which two millions belonged to the province of Ulster. Now, every gentleman who was acquainted with the counties of Antrim, Down, and Armagh, would acknowledge, that in those counties the inhabitants were nearly all of them Protestants, or at least that the Protestant part of them was far more numerous than the Catholic. The same was the case in Londonderry. In Donnegal the Protestants were full as numerous as the Catholics. In Cavan they were rather, and in Tyrone they were much, less numerous. Indeed, he would be fully justified in stating, that five-eighths of the population of Ulster were Protestants—a calculation which would give 1,250,000 Protestants for Ulster alone. Though in the country parts of Leinster, as distinguished from the towns, the Catholics were much more numerous than the Protestants, still upon the whole, the Protestants were in proportion to the Catholics as one to five; in Minister, they were as one to twelve; and in Connaught, as one to twenty-four. This calculation would give about 300,000 Protestants to Leinster, 200,000 to Munster, and 40,000 to Connaught; and would make the total amount of Protestants in all the provinces of Ireland about 1,800,000. This calculation shewed, that the Protestants in Ireland were to the Catholics, not in the numerical proportion of one to fourteen, as the hon. member for Aberdeen had stated, but in the numerical proportion of one to four. If then one-fourth of the population of Ireland were Protestant, ought they to proceed rashly to destroy the property of its church establishment, in order to conciliate the religious prejudices of the remainder of its inhabitants? Another assumption which the hon. member for Aberdeen bad made was, that the ecclesiastical property of Ireland in the hands of the bishops amounted to 2,500,000l. Now it was impossible for a moment to admit the correctness of this assumption, without contradicting the evidence of their senses. The bishops of Ireland, on an average, did not receive more than 5,000l. a year. There were, it was true, certain bishoprics which had immense emoluments, but there were others which were excessively poor; and he thought that he had rather exceeded than diminished the real average, in taking it at the ratio which he had mentioned. Now, to confiscate this property would be to spoliate the laity, and not the clergy of Ireland; for the church property of that country was leased out amongst its gentry in such a manner, that for every 1,000l. which would be taken from the bishops, 5,000l. or 7,000l. would be taken from the country gentlemen.—With regard to the amount of tithes, he would prove that the hon. member for Aberdeen had also been guilty of great exaggeration. The number of parishes in Ireland was 2,500. Now in 84 of them, taken indiscriminately, the value of the tithes had been ascertained, under the last tithe composition act. The average value of each was 410l.; and he conceived that this average was rather too great for the whole of Ireland. But, taking the tithes of all the parishes in Ireland at this average, the total amount would fall short of one million sterling. Of these tithes, one-third at least were in the hands of the laity; so that the* tithes left in the hands of the clergy would not much exceed 600,000l. a year. Upon this calculation the question arose, how far was this sum essential to the maintenance of the church establishment of Ireland? He would compare it with the rental of Ireland, which, as the House seemed averse to listening to the details into which he had entered, he would take without stating the calculations from which he deduced it, at 10,000,000l. sterling. Of this sum the income which the clergy derived from tithes formed a seventeenth. The real question, therefore to be considered was this—were the peasantry of Ireland likely to be benefitted by the transference of this income to other landlords than those who now received it? The hon. gentleman proceeded to discuss this point at some length, but the noise in the House prevented his arguments from being heard. He conceived that abundant reasons had been offered to the House in the course of the discussion, why it ought not to go into this inquiry, even if it had the power. He now said, that if it had the inclination to institute the inquiry, it had not the power; for the act of union stipulated, that the church of Ireland should be preserved in the same state of security that it then enjoyed, under the protection of the law; and this inquiry went to violate that security in some of its most essential points. It was of great importance to the people of Ireland, that this question should be immediately set at rest. An idea had been sedulously propagated in that country, that the church establishment ought to be got rid of as soon as possible. Old prophecies on the subject had been carefully raked from the obscurity in which they had been enveloped, for the purpose of convincing the people, that the time of their accomplishment was near at hand. The agitation of this question in Parliament would induce them to suppose, that they had allies within its walls zealously co-operating with them to produce the same result. He therefore thought, that, the sooner the House showed its determination to maintain the church of Ireland unimpaired, the sooner would it restore peace and tranquillity to Ireland.

Mr. Hume

rose to reply. He contended, that the hon. member who spoke second, and who had accused him of making erroneous statements to the House upon the faith of anonymous publications, had himself made more erroneous statements to the House than he had ever contrived to put together. The hon. member had made a very long and a very able speech, which many members might suppose was an answer to the speech which he (Mr. H.) had previously delivered; but, it was no such thing. The hon. member had answered a speech which he had never made, and had refuted statements in a pamphlet which he (Mr. H.) had never seen. In the course of the debate he had been frequently accused of exaggeration; but he found that not more than three of his statements had been seriously contradicted, The first contradiction which he had received was as to the amount of the church establishment. That amount he had taken, not from any anonymous publication, but from Mr. Wakefield's Survey of Ireland; and if the hon. member would compare it with the amount given in the Clerical Register, a work which had something of an official character, he would find it to be correct even to a unit. The next contradiction which he had received regarded the patronage of the Irish church; and upon that point the hon. member said that he must have mistaken the parishes for benefices. Now, he had stated the benefices in the hands of the bishops to be about 1,391. That amount he had taken upon Mr. Wakefield's authority, who had extracted it from a Memoir of Dr. Beaufort. The hon. member, in proof of his assertions, had said, that there were only 20 benefices in the county of Dublin. Now, the last returns presented to the House proved, that in that county there were 209 parishes, and 144 benefices. He, therefore, left the House to decide whether he had made his assertions on the faith of anonymous statements, or whether he had made them from official documents, which the hon member himself had neglected to consult. He trusted that he had said enough to convince the House, that no sufficient answer had been given to his statements. It was easy to say, that they were exaggerations, or to add that they were made for the purposes of spoliation; but he maintained that he had already shown them to be no exaggerations, and he appealed to the words of his resolution to convince the House that spoliation was not his object. All that he wished the House to do was, to inquire. He had been candid enough to state what his own opinions were upon the subject; he had not called upon the House to adopt them: he had simply offered them to its notice, and had left them to judge of the propriety of the inquiry upon its own clear and definite merits.—The third point on which the right hon. and learned member had contradicted his statements, related to the non-residence of the Irish beneficed clergy. The learned member had contradicted them upon the faith of private information, which he stated himself to have recently received from a person well acquainted with the subject. Now he thought that the member had no right to set up his private information as superior to that which was founded on the last official documents presented to that House. The learned gentleman had said, what a mere statement of the fact was sufficient to disprove—namely, that in the whole church of Ireland there were not more then 20 or 30 absentees. Now, by an abstract of the returns relating to the residency of the clergy in Ireland for the year 1820, he would show, that there were more than 30 non-resident clergymen in one diocese Out of 1,289 clergymen, he found there were only 758 residents; that there were several who by faculties were only partially resident; and that there were 243 non-resident, by faculties and other causes, which it was not necessary to enumerate at length. He did not know where the right hon. and learned member had been lately; but to a certainty he could not have been much in that House, or he would have known that the secretary for Ireland had brought in a bill to enforce the residence of the clergy in Ireland. Now, how did the learned member reconcile the introduction of that bill with the small number of absentees which he had stated? If there had not been more than 20 or 30 clergymen absent from their livings, would any child believe that the secretary for Ireland would have formally introduced a bill into Parliament to remedy the evil occasioned by their non-residence? Why really, if he had not facts to support him in his assertions, and if he were not able to corroborate those facts by the concurrent testimony of official documents, he might be told that he stood upon his head instead of his heels; and might be ridiculed as incredulous, because he could not give credit to so preposterous a statement.—One word with regard to the sacredness of church property. The learned member had said, that he would not embark in the same vessel with him on this question, lest, after he had once got out to sea, he should find it impossible to turn back and regain the terra firma of honour and right principle. For his own part, he must confess, that he (Mr. H.) was not overproud of such company as the learned member's. He would likewise add, that the man who said that the welfare of the Catholic population of England was dear to his heart, and could yet refuse to entertain a measure that was calculated to promote that welfare, was a man in whose company he (Mr. H.) would not willingly sail. The learned member had asked, whether there was any difference between the sacredness of church property and private property. He (Mr. H.) replied, that there was a great difference. For instance, an individual had a right to devise his property by will after his death. Had the holder of church property any such right? If an individual died without a will, his successors, whether they were his children or his next of kin, were known, and to them the law would transfer his property. Was such the case with regard to the church? Was there any person known or recognized as the successor to the incumbent of a benefice? or would the law give it as matter of right to any particular individual? No such thing. In all the propositions which he had made on this subject he had carefully abstained from meddling with existing interests; and, therefore, as nobody could be injured by his prospective regulations, where was the injury of attempting to regulate church property? The learned member had given it as his opinion, that church property ought not to be subjected to parliamentary interference. What, however, was the opinion of a man who was a little more respected than the learned member ever had been or would be—he meant the late Mr. Grattan? That great and acute man had paid much attention to this subject, and in a speech which he made, in refutation of arguments similar to those which had been urged by the learned member that evening—a fact, by the by, which did not speak much for his talent and ingenuity—had observed, that "church property was a public fund for the payment of those public officers who were employed to maintain the national religion; and that as such, it was liable to be controlled and regulated by parliament for the interest of that religion, and also for the national benefit." He considered this opinion of Mr. Grattan to be a complete balance, to say the least of it, to the opinion which the learned member had stated, with so much loudness and vehemence, that evening.—Mr. Hume then contended, that he had not overstated the amount of the church property in Ireland, and proceeded to maintain his argument by reference to several official returns, of which some had been recently furnished to the House, and of which others were, he could not deny it, rather antiquated; though he had yet to learn that they were, on that account, undeserving of credit. He trusted that before the House entered upon this discussion again, gentlemen would place their information in an official shape on the table of the House, and would refrain from making charges of exaggeration against their opponents, which, when challenged to make good, they could not substantiate. He repeated, that all he wanted to obtain was inquiry into the state of ecclesiastical property in Ireland, and that he was most adverse to any measure which savoured of robbery or confiscation.—The hon. gentleman then sat down amidst loud cheering.

The House divided: Ayes 79. Noes 153.

List of the Minority.
Anson, hon. G.	Maberty, W. L.
Barrett, S. M.	Macdonald, Jas.
Becher, W. W.	Marjoribanks, S.
Benyon, Benj.	Martin, John
Bernal, Ralph	Monk, J. B.
Brougham, H.	Moore, Peter
Browne, Dom.	Newport, sir John
Belgrave, visct.	Normanby, viscount
Calcraft, John	Ord, W.
Calcraft, J. R.	Osborne, lord F. G.
Cavendish, C. C.	Palmer, C.
Glifton, visct.	Palmer, C. F.
Colborne, N. W. R.	Power, M.
Crompton, S.	Pryse, Pryse
Cradock, S.	Rice, T. S.
Davies, T.	Robarts, A. W.
Dennison, W. J.	Robarts, G. J.
Denman, Thos.	Russell, lord J.
Dundas, hon. Thos.	Russell, lord G. W.
Ebrington, viscount	Rickford W.
Ellice, Edward	Robertson, Alex.
Ellice, hon. A.	Scarlett, J.
Fitzgerald, Rt. hon. M	Scott, Jas.
Fergusson, sir R.	Sebright, sir John
Graham, S.	Smith, John
Gordon, Robert	Smith, hon. R.
Gurney, H.	Smith, W.
Hamilton, lord A.	Steward, W. (Tyrone)
Heron, sir Robert	Stuart, lord F. J. C.
Hill, lord A.	Taylor, M. A.
Hobhouse, J. C.	Townshend, lord C.
Honywood, W. P.	Webbe, Edw.
Hutchinson, hon. C. H.	Whitbread, S. C.
James, Will.	White, Sam.
Johnson, W. A.	Williams, John
Kennedy, T. F.	Wilson, sir Robert
Lamb, hon. G.	Wood, Matthew
Leycester, R.	Wall, Baring
Leader, W.	TELLERS.
Langston, J. H.	Hume, Joseph
Maberly, John	Burdett, sir F.